Appellees secured a temporary injunction againt appellant in the Circuit Court of Dade County, *314 restraining Mm from violating certаin restrictive covenants in a deed to Lot 11, Block 5, in the subdivision of the City of Miami, known as Inverness. On final hearing the temporary injunction was mаde permanent. Appeal is taken from that order.
Appеllant contends here that the bill of complaint was insufficient on which to predicate a temporary restraining order and that appellees have lost any right to such relief by reason of thеir long continued acquiescence in previous violations оf the covenants brought in question.
The assault on the bill of complаint is grounded on the fact that it does not allege that a violation of the covenants in the deed amounts to an irreparablе injury or constitutes a nuisance to the complainants. In this case the injunction is sought to prevent the violation of a-restrictive сovenant in a contract agreement and when this is the casе appropriate allegations showing the violation of or qmsi violation of the covenant is sufficient. The bill complained of is ample for this purpose and presents a cause of action.
The restrictions in the deed which appellees allеge were being violated are as follows:
‘ ‘ That no more than оne dwelling house shall be placed on one lot, and no dwelling house shall be less distant than twenty-five feet from the street line in front of said premises, including porch, and on cornor lots not less distant than fiftеen feet from the line of the side street. ’ ’
Said deeds also contain the following pertinent provision:
‘ ‘ That a violating of any оther restriction above written shall constitute a nuisance which may be abated at the instance of the grantor or any person then a lot owner in said subdivision. ”
Appellant does not deny violating the foregoing restrictions in that he was setting up his house less than twenty-five feet from the street line in front of said premises, but
*315
lie attempts to justify suсh violation on the ground that similar violations have been so oftеn condoned and acquieseened in by appellees that they amount to an abandonment of this provision in the deed. Apрellant relies on Scharer v. Pantler,
Covenants restraining the freе use of real property, although not favored in law will be enfоrced by the courts when the restriction applies to the location of buildings to be erected on the land and such restrictions are carried in all deeds with a view to preserve the symmetry, beauty and general good of all interested in the scheme of development. The benefit of the restrictive covenants inures to each purchaser irrespective of the time of purchаse. Mayes v. Hale,
In the case at bar the record discloses that ‘ ‘Inverness ’ ’ consists of one hundred and twenty lots and that seventeеn houses have been built within the said subdivision. Appellees individually own lots in the immediate vicinity of that owned by appellant. A few violations оf the restrictions quoted herein are shown but none of them materially effect the rights of the appellees in the premises who have made ample showing for the relief sought.
The decree of the Chancellor is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed: