Thе hill is to enjoin the defendant from maintaining and using a private garage attached to the rear of his dwelling house, which is located on a lot adjoining the residenсe of' complainant. The only question involved is whether or not that garage, as constructed, violates a restriction, common to? all deeds for lots in the tract, which reads as follows:
*93 “No garage, stable or other outbuilding shall be constructed, erected, placed or maintained upon said land nearer than 100 fеet to the east side of Buena Place.”
The garage as constructed is within the proscribed one hundred feet but it is contended by the defendant that becausе it is attached to the dwelling house it does not come within the inhibition of the restriction. At the final hearing, the court construed the restriction to be “against a stable, ■оr a garage, which is an outbuilding,” and this construction was assented to by counsel. Counsel for complainant in his brief, however, now argues against this construction and insists that thе word “other” is an adjective referring only to the word “outbuilding.” But I think it is clear that the words “other outbuilding” have a close and definite relation to the words “garage” and “stable,” and are, in effect, descriptive thereof. With this construction the restriction reads: “No garage which is an outbuilding, and no stable which is an outbuilding, and no other outbuilding shall be constructed,” &c. I adhere to the construction placed upon the restriction at the trial. The real question presented for decision, therefоre, is whether or not the structure complained of is an outbuilding; if not, it may lawfully be maintained; but if it is an outbuilding, then it is violative of the restrictive covenant.
The Standard Dictionаry defines an outbuilding as “a small building appurtenant to a main building and generally separated from it; an outhouse.” And “outhouse” is therein defined as “a small building standing apart from, but appurtenant to, a main or large building or dwelling; an out-' building.” The words “outbuilding” and “outhouse” are often used interchangeably.
Bennett v. Haerlin, 107 N. J. Eq. 224; 46 Corp. Jur. 1156.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines “outhouse” аs “a building adjoining or belonging to a dwelling house,” “a building subservient to yet distinct from the mansion house, located either within or without the curtilage.” Wharton’s Law Dictionary defines аn “outhouse” as “a building belonging and adjoining to a dwelling house.” Other definitions will be found in
Words and, Phrases, 1st
*94
and £d Series.
An interesting discussion of the meaning of' the word “outhouse” (or outbuilding) as used in a restrictive-covenant will be found in
Bassett
v.
Pepe,
“What we are concerned with is the question whether, in view of its attachment to the house, this garage is to be-considered as a thing apart from the'house.
“The term ‘’outhouse’ naturally implies that the structure-under consideration is not one with a dwelling house. Clearly it must be something distinguishable and distinct, from the dwelling house to whiсh it is subservient. Otherwise it were ill named. Upon the question as to what the-requirement as to distinction and separation imports and what it signifies, adjudicated cases, * * * throw little-light.”
A further reading of the opinion will show that while the-question of whether or not an outhouse is of necessity a structure separate and standing physically apart frоm the-dwelling house to which it is subservient is there, raised and discussed at some length, it is not answered. The authorities,, it seems, are not in complete accord as to thе exact meaning-of the words but it is noteworthy that reputable legal authorities (Bouvier and Wharton) say that an outhouse is “a-building belonging and adjoining ío a dwelling house.” My own оpinion is that absolute physical separation from the-mansion house is not necessarily the distinguishing feature-of an outbuilding and that outside appearancеs are not always conclusive. I suspect that the term “outhouse” may 'anciently have been almost solely descriptive of that “weather beaten object * * * behind the house and barn- * * * a half a mile or more,” immortalized in verse and prose by James Whitcomb Eiley and Chic Sales; and, if the present controversial garаge is permissible, the defendant might with all propriety attach one of those interesting-structures to the rear of his garage and within the proscribed area. But it is hardly to be supposed that he would be permitted to do so without strong protest on the part of his neighbors.
*95
But this restriction does not prevent the construction and maintеnance of the modern type of attached garage, if it is an integral part of the dwelling house and so constructed as not to give the effect of a sеparate building and so attached to the house as to present the appearance of and be, in fact, architecturally and otherwise, pаrt of it.
Peirce
v.
Beyer,
In Rothholz v. Stern, 97 N. J. Eq. 189, Vice-Chancellor Ingersoll enjoined the erection of a garage which was connected with the dwelling house by two iron bars extending from the roof of the garage to the house as violative .of a restriction that “private dwellings only shall be erected” upon said premises; a finding, in effect, that the garage, notwithstanding its physical connection, was an outbuilding. And in Trainer v. Calef (Court of Errors and Appeals), 96 N. J. Eq. 657, it is indicated that the construction of a private garage as an addition to a dwelling house, and in architectural harmony therewith, would not violate a covenant restricting the use of a dwelling house exclusively to privаte dwellings, a finding, in effect, that a “built in” garage does *96 not change the character of the dwelling but is rather absorbed in it.
But neither
Sullivan
v.
Sprung (N. Y.),