1. Complainants and four others purchased the premises in question in order to prevent the threatened construction of a business thereon. The conveyance to them, as tenants in common, contained a restriction identical with that inserted in their deed to defendants' predecessor in title, forbidding the erection of any building other than a dwelling house on the premises. Defendants have begun to alter the dwelling on the lot so that it may be used as a retail store. Decree restraining defendants from using the building or any addition thereto for any purpose other than a dwelling or from altering or adding to the building so that it may be adapted for use other than a dwelling, and commanding defendants to remove additions begun for such prohibited use and to restore the building so that it shall be adapted for a dwelling only, granted.
2. The fact that complainants' grantor quit-claimed to defendants his right to enforce the restriction in question, does not prejudice complainants in the enforcement of an identical covenant between them and their grantee, defendants' predecessor in title.
3. Complainants were tenants in common with four others under the conveyance by which they formerly owned the premises. Their rights under the restrictive covenant in question are therefore several and may be enforced at the suit of less than all of them.
4. Since the rights of the covenantees are several, the standing of complainants to enforce the covenant is not affected by the action of the other four covenantees in selling their homes in the neighborhood.
5. The lack of restrictions on the lots of complainants and those formerly owned by the other four covenantees, is immaterial in complainants' enforcement of the covenant. This is not a case of a neighborhood scheme.
6. A neighborhood scheme cannot be established by restrictions on a single lot.
7. Changes in the neighborhood have not been so great as entirely to nullify any benefits that complainants might have by the continued observance of the restrictions in question.
8. The restrictions inserted by complainants and their co-tenants in their conveyance to defendants' predecessor in title were stated to "run with and be binding on the premises." They are enforceable not only against complainants' grantee but against anyone, including defendants, who accepted title under the grantee with knowledge of the restrictions.
PER CURIAM.
The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Bigelow.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.