We have said that “the right * * * to live in a district uninvaded by stores, garages, business, and apartment houses is a valuable right”
(Signaigo
v.
Begun,
Plaintiffs complain of too much of a good thing. They purchased on executory land contracts two lоts in a subdivision known as McGiverin-Haldeman’s Huntington Woods Manor in Oakland county. These lots, in commоn with 563 other lots of the subdivision, were restricted tо single residence. The remaining 377 lots could bе used for flats, stores, or offices. Later thеre was substituted one general restriction limiting the whole subdivision to single residences. Alleging thereby breach of the contracts, plaintiffs filеd bill to rescind, which, on motion, was dismissed. Plaintiffs havе appealed.
The legal nature of these restrictions, reciprocal nеgative easements, is fully discussed in
Johnstone
v.
Railway Co., supra,
and
Sanborn
v.
McLean,
This court has permitted rescission for mere breach оf contract (see 9 C. J. p. 1181), but has not gone so far that the following from 6 R. C. L. p. 926, is not accеptable:
“It is not every partial failure tо comply with the terms of a contract by one party which will entitle the other party to abandon the contract at oncе.”
Rather rescission is permissible when there is а failure to perform a substantial part оf the contract or one of its essential items, or where “the contract would not hаve been made if default in that particulаr had been expected or contemplated.” 1 Black on Rescission and Cancellation (2d Ed.), p. 553.
The following are illustrative cases where rescission was had:
In
Brow
v.
Gibraltar Land Co.,
In
Seymour
v.
Detroit C. & B. Bolling Mills,
In
City of Grand Haven
v.
Grand Haven Waterworks,
The merely technical brеach here alleged does not fall within the class where rescission is permitted. The bill states no case of equitable cognizance. Plaintiff may resort to action for damages, if any.
Affirmed.