1. The residential neighborhood scheme sustained in Humphreys v. Ibach, 110 N.J. Eq. 647, is still applicable to defendant's lot. There being no proof that the restrictions here in question have not been observed by all lot owners affected thereby, and no important change having occurred in the neighborhood building situation since that case was decided, other than the erection of defendants' structure, held, defendants have violated the restrictions.
2. Complainants are not in laches and therefore estopped from asserting the rights for which they contend. They gave defendants timely notice as soon as they had reason to suspect that the nature and purpose of defendants' proposed construction might be in violation of the restrictions, and at that time actual work had not proceeded beyond the laying of the footings for the foundations and the placing thereon of some wall blocks.
3. Besides notice from complainants, defendants had record notice of the restrictions on their lot and the rights of adjacent property owners thereunder. And they were bound by the decree entered against their predecessor in title upholding the restrictions.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Fielder, filed in the Court of Chancery.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, COLIE, WACHENFELD, EASTWOOD, BURLING, WELLS, DILL, McGEEHAN, McLEAN, SCHETTINO, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.