M. P. LEHMAN, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.

PAUL F. FITZGERALD, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Citator

Cited By (38 total)

• The City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1941)
  …inity, were restricted by the original subdivider to private residential use. But in the course of years the character of the neighborhood changed, and these restrictions were removed, in the first instance by court proceedings. See Osius v. Barton, 109 Fla. 556, 147 So. 862 (a decision in which the writer did not participate) and Osius, et al., v. Barton, 129 Fla. 184, 176 So. 65. The Osius property was located in the northern part of Block 54, across Collins Avenue from the Fisher home, and extended along…
• Hagan v. Sabal Palms, Inc., 186 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
  …ed exception or exceptions, however, will not impair or insulate the efficacy of the general scheme.3 26 C.J.S. Deeds § 167(2)b, p. 1147 et seq. See Edgewater Beach Hotel Corporation v. Bishop, 1935, 120 Fla. 623, 163 So. 214; Osius v. Barton, 1933, 109 Fla. 556, 147 So. 862, 88 A.L.R. 394. Here the words used in the deeds from the common grantor, viz.: “No building shall be used for any purpose other than as a dwelling,” were clear, concise and to the point, and could not have failed to have expressed the…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Barton v. Moline Props., Inc., 121 Fla. 683 (Fla. 1935)
  …before us on rehearing granted pursuant to filing of opinion herein on July 6, 1935. It appears that in the determination of the merits in this case the court below followed the rule as stated by us in the case of Osius, et al., v. Barton, et al., 109 Fla. 556, 147 Sou. 862, in which we said: “Because of the nature of covenants imposing restrictions on the use of real property, whether sought to be enforced as between covenanter and covenantee, or whether treated as enforceable because running with the l…

  ← 1 / 3 →