majority"> ConNoe, J.

There is no error in the judgment oyerruling the demurrer to the complaint in this action. The only question presented for decision is whether or not the facts alleged in the complaint, admitted by the demurrer (Yarborough v. Park Commission, 196 N. C., 284, 145 S. E., 563), are sufficient to constitute a cause of action on which plaintiff is entitled to recover of the defendant, W. E. Buffaloe. This question was correctly decided in the Superior Court, and the judgment overruling the demurrer is affirmed.

The contention discussed in the brief for the defendant filed in this Court that notwithstanding the absence of the covenant in the deed from defendant to the State School for the Blind and the Deaf, Inc., upon the facts alleged in the complaint, the plaintiffs have sustained no damage, because the said school is bound by the restrictive covenant contained in the deeds to plaintiffs and to purchasers of other lots, is not presented by this appeal. There is no admission by the State School for the Blind and Deaf, Inc., that the lots conveyed to said school by the defendant were included in a general plan and scheme for the development of the parcel of land owned by the defendant, W. E. Buffaloe. In the absence of such an admission, or of a finding upon competent evidence of such fact, the said school holds title to the lots conveyed to it by defendant, free of any restrictive covenant. See Stephens Co. v. Binder, ante, 295. The map of the parcel of land, showing its division into lots, recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Wake County, is not sufficient alone to show a general plan and scheme for development and sale by deeds containing restrictive covenants. Davis v. Robinson, 189 N. C., 589, 127 S. E., 697.

Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress