Is Bernard Loichot, under these facts, an "adjacent or neighboring property owner," and thus qualified to maintain the instant action? The word "adjacent" has been defined by the courts of Ohio as follows: lying near, to lie near, close, or contiguous. It is a relative term, and its meaning must be determined in connection with the manner in which it is used. Blum v. Hodapp, 87 Ohio App. 45, at 49; Cincinnati v. The Pittsburgh C. C. St. L. Ry. Co., 30 W. L. B. 137 at 139; West v. Hall, 34 C. D. 403, Dixon v. The Van Sweringen Co., 121 Ohio St. 56, at 68. Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines adjacent as: "1a. not distant or far off * * * nearby but not touching * * * b. relatively near and having nothing of the same kind intervening: having a common border: abutting, touching: living nearby or sitting or standing relatively near or close together * * *."
26 Corpus Juris Secundum, 1149, Deeds, Section 167(2). The Court of Appeals of this district has been called upon on at least two relatively recent occasions to apply these rules in the cases of Smith v. Volk, 85 Ohio App. 347, 86 N.E.2d 30, and Blum v. Hodapp, 87 Ohio App. 45, 86 N.E.2d 807. In the former case, the court concluded, among other things, that the fact that restrictions vary slightly in different deeds and that a lot and parcel of land on the edge of the tract is sold without any restrictions does not invalidate the building plan or scheme adopted.
The rationale of the decisions in Ohio run counter to the application of this doctrine. Kiley v. Hall, supra; Adams v. Donovan, supra; Hunt v. Held, 90 Ohio St. 280, 107 N.E. 765; Smith v. Volk, 85 Ohio App. 347, 86 N.E.2d 30; Grant v. Hickok Oil Co., 84 Ohio App. 509, 87 N.E.2d 708; Edwards v. Trailer Park, 84 Ohio App. 518, 88 N.E.2d 187; Olmsted v. Schrembs, 30 Ohio App. 430, 165 N.E. 51; Blum v. Hodapp, 55 Ohio Law Abs., 203, 86 N.E.2d 807. The doctrine of reciprocal negative easement has been rejected in other states. For reference, see McCusker v. Goode, 185 Mass. 607, 71 N.E. 76; Kuhn v. Saum, 316 Mo., 805, 291 S.W. 104; Beetchenow v. Arter, 45 R.I. 133, 119 A. 758; Bondurant v. Paducah Illinois Ry. Co., 186 Ky. 794, 218 S.W. 257; Kessler v. School District, 346 Pa. 305, 30 A.2d 117; Wing v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn., 15 Cal.2d 472, 101 P.2d 1099; Bristol v. Woodward, 251 N.Y. 275, 167 N.E. 441; Gibney v. Stockdale Corp., 20 Del. Ch. Rep., 272, 174 A. 117.