The defendant’s land is part of a larger lot formerly owned by the plaintiff and by Charles Nowell, and conveyed to thеm by the Boston Water Power Company by deed dated Oсtober 16,1860. The Nowells afterwards conveyed
The defendant proposes to build upon the line of A Street, now called St. James Avenue, a brick wall six feet in height, with a coping on said wall not exceeding one foot in height, to be used as a fence or wall. The only question presented by the rеport is whether the erection of such a wall would bе a violation of the above restriction. The plaintiff contends that it would violate the last clause of the-restriction, which provides that “ no building shall be erectеd on the said land within ten feet of said A Street.” There is no rеason to suppose that the word “ building ” in this clause is used in any other sense than that in which it is used in other parts of the dеed, where it is spoken of as being t^o stories in height, as hаving a basement and attic, and as having exterior walls. Throughout the deed, the word is manifestly used in its ordinary sense, to dеnote a structure or edifice enclosing a spаce within its walls and usually covered with a roof, such as a house, a church, a shop, a barn or a shed. The wall which the defendant proposes to erect cannot in any just sense be called a building within the meaning of' the restriction.
The plaintiff has argued in this court that the prоposed wall would be a violation of the restriction or agreement contained in the deeds from the said Nowells to the defendant’s grantors, to this effect, that thе grantees shall make no change in the fence on the line of St. James Avenue within five years, and “ shall not build on thе granted premises any other fence of any othеr
Decree affirmed.