Opinion
March, 1934.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur;
For five years, without objection on the part of plaintiffs, appellant had used the premises as a lumber yard in direct violation of the covenant. After the fire there was no protest by plaintiffs until the service of the summons and complaint, at which time the new structure had been substantially erected. Under these circumstances plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief except as to the encroachment on the building line restriction. There is no proof as to the position of the structure before the fire.