phrase clause in Louisiana

1964In the similar case of Salerno v. DeLucca, 211 La. 659 , 30 So.2d 678 the court recognized that building restrictions are stricti juris but stated the following rule of interpretation which is applicable here: “Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the i

1964In the similar case of Salerno v. DeLucca, 211 La. 659 , 30 So.2d 678 the court recognized that building restrictions are stricti juris but stated the following rule of interpretation which is applicable here: “Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the i

1983In the case of LeBlanc v. Bowen, 238 So.2d 369 (La.App. 4th Cir.1970) a tract of land which was situated adjacent to property subject to a residential restrictive covenant sought by plaintiff to be enforced was being used by a trailer sales company for commercial purposes.

1979In the case of LeBlanc v. Bowen, 238 So.2d 369 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970) a tract of land which was situated adjacent to property subject to a residential restrictive covenant sought by plaintiff to be enforced was being used by a trailer sales company for commercial purposes.

1977Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the instrument rather than to a single phrase or clause, for obviously those acquiring the property in the restricted area were motivated and influenced to purchase the same because of these limitations and they are

1977Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the instrument rather than to a single phrase or clause, for obviously those acquiring the property in the restricted area were motivated and influenced to purchase the same because of these limitations and they are

1977Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the instrument rather than to a single phrase or clause, for obviously those acquiring the property in the restricted area were motivated and influenced to purchase the same because of these limitations and they are

1977Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the instrument rather than to a single phrase or clause, for obviously those acquiring the property in the restricted area were motivated and influenced to purchase the same because of these limitations and they are

1977Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the instrument rather than to a single phrase or clause, for obviously those acquiring the property in the restricted area were motivated and influenced to purchase the same because of these limitations and they are

1977Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the instrument rather than to a single phrase or clause, for obviously those acquiring the property in the restricted area were motivated and influenced to purchase the same because of these limitations and they are

1963In the case of Brandon v. Price, Ky., 314 S.W.2d 521 (1958), the court said: “Under the modern view, building restrictions are regarded more as a protection to the property owner and the public rather than a restriction on the use of property, and the old-time doctrine of strict construction no longer applies.” There is a split of authority in the jurisprudence of other states whether the terms “a”, “one”, or “single” dwelling is sufficient to exclude multiple dwellings from the land. 14 A.L.R.2d 1387 .

1958First Circuit, 42 So.2d 876 , and Harris v. Pierce, La.App.

1956Counsel for plaintiffs suggest, correctly in our opinion, that the phrase that the doctrine applies when “the evidence as to the true explanation of the accident is more readily accessible to the defendant than to the plaintiff”, Northwestern Mutual Fire Association v. Allain, 226 La. 788 , 77 So.2d 395 , at page 397, is most often used as a corollary explanation of why the defendant who has control of the instrumentality should be called upon to explain the occurrence of the accident.

1956Counsel for plaintiffs suggest, correctly in our opinion, that the phrase that the doctrine applies when “the evidence as to the true explanation of the accident is more readily accessible to the defendant than to the plaintiff”, Northwestern Mutual Fire Association v. Allain, 226 La. 788 , 77 So.2d 395 , at page 397, is most often used as a corollary explanation of why the defendant who has control of the instrumentality should be called upon to explain the occurrence of the accident.