Superior Court of California summons

12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT --------OF TH E-------- STATE OF CALIFORNIA I N ' A N D F O R T H E C O U N T Y O F L O S A N G E L E S Southwestern Securities Company, a corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Clara A ppeltofft, A. F. Beal, Della J. Beal, Gerald Brooks, Mabel E. Brooks, Dora M. Burch, Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, a cor­poration, Leo M. Daly, Mary L. Daly, Henry P. Eldridge, Olga M. Eldridge, First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Pasadena, a corporation, First Holding Corporation, a corporation, First Trust and Savings Bank of Pasadena, a corporation, George S. Flintoft, Edna E. Flintoft, James G. Francis, Gertrude T. Francis, Sadie B. George, Willard H. George, Ltd., a corporation, Carolyn Gillmore, Purcell G. Gillmore, George C. Hanna, Sara Harding, Los Angeles Trust & Safe Deposit Company, a corpora­tion, Viola Emery McLain, H. G. Mines, Pearl Voll-mer Mines, W . W . Mines, Julius E. Morgan, Marie C. Morgan, Wellslake D. Morse, Mortgage Guarantee Company, a corporation, W . H. Norwood, Bertha Norwood, Pasadena Building & Loan Association, a corporation, Mabel A. Poole, Annie M. Price, Carrie E. Price, Tarria M. Pushman, Bernice W . Ramsay, Security-First National Bank of - Los Angeles, a national banking association, Security Title Insurance and Guarantee Company, a corporation, John W . Slater, Elizabeth J. Slater, A. W . Taylor, Mildred L. Taylor, Title Insurance and Trust Company, a cor­poration, Veterans’ Welfare Board of the State of California, a body politic, Howry H. Warner, Mary R. Warner, West Coast Bond and Mortgage Com­pany, a corporation, One Doe, Two Doe, Three Doe, Four Doe, Five Doe, Six Doe, Seven Doe, Eight Doe, Nine Doe, Ten Doe, Eleven Doe, Twelve Doe, Thir­teen Doe, Fourteen Doe, Fifteen Doe, Sixteen Doe, Seventeen Doe, Eighteen Doe, Nineteen Doe, Twenty Doe, One Doe Company, a corporation, Two Doe Company, a corporation, Three Doe Company, a cor­poration, Four Doe Company, a corporation, Five Doe Company, a corporation, Six Doe Company, a cor­poration, Seven Doe Company, a corporation, Eight Doe Company, a corporation, Nine Doe Company, a corporation, Ten Doe Company, a corporation, Eleven Doe Company, a corporation, Twelve Doe Company, a corporation, Thirteen Doe Company, a corporation, Fourteen Doe Company, a corporation, Fifteen Doe No. 423811 Action brought in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, and Complaint filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of said County. SUMMONS 1 A 1 Company, a corporation, Sixteen Doe Company, a 2 corporation, Seventeen Doe Company, a corporation, 3 Eighteen Doe Company, a corporation, Nineteen Doe 4 Company, a corporation, and Twenty Doe Company, 5 a corporation, 6 Defendants. 7 ______ ______________________________________ 8 . ? ? ? ? I 9 The People o f the State o f California Send Greetings To: 10 Clara Appeltofft, A. F. Beal, Della J. Beal, Gerald Brooks, Mabel E. Brooks, Dora M. 11 Burch, Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Leo M. Daly, Mary L. 12 Daly, Henry P. Eldridge, Olga M. Eldridge, First Federal Savings and Loan Association 13 -0f Pasadena, a corporation, First Holding Corporation, a corporation, First Trust and 11 Savings Bank of Pasadena, a corporation, George S. Flintoft, Edna E. Flintoft, James G. I 5 Francis, Gertrude T. Francis, Sadie B. George, Willard H. George, Ltd., a corporation, Caro­ls |yn Gillmore, Purcell G. Gillmore, George C. Hanna, Sara Harding, Los Angeles Trust & 1^ Safe Deposit Company, a corporation, Viola Emery McLain, H. G. Mines, Pearl Vollmer 18 Mines, W . W . Mines, Julius E. Morgan, Marie C. Morgan, Wellslake D.l Morse, Mortgage 1^ Guarantee Company, a corporation, W . H. Norwood, Bertha Norwood, Pasadena Building & 2® Loan Association, a corporation, Mabel A. Poole, Annie M. Price, Carrie E. Price, Tarria M. 2Z Pushman, Bernice W . Ramsay, Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, a national bank- 2_ ing association, Security Title Insurance and Guarantee Company, a corporation, John W . 28 Slater, Elizabeth J. Slater, A. W . Taylor, Mildred L. Taylor, Title Insurance and Trust ~Z Company, a corporation, Veterans’ Welfare Board of the State of California, a body politic, ?? Howry H. Warner, Mary R. Warner, West Coast Bond and Mortgage Company, a cor- 07 poration, One Doe, Two Doe, Three Doe, Four Doe, Five Doe, Six Doe, Seven Doe, Eight Doe, Nine Doe, Ten Doe, Eleven Doe, Twelve Doe, Thirteen Doe, Fourteen Doe, Fifteen 09 Doe* Sixteen Doe, Seventeen Doe, Eighteen Doe, Nineteen Doe, Twenty Doe, One Doe gQ Company, a corporation, Two Doe Company, a corporation, Three Doe Company, a corpora-tion, Four Doe Company, a corporation, Five Doe Company, a corporation, Six Doe Com- 32 pany, a corporation, Seven Doe Company, a corporation, Eight Doe Company, a corporation, 33 Nine Doe Company, a corporation, Ten Doe Company, a corporation, Eleven Doe Company, 34 a corporation, Twelve Doe Company, a corporation, Thirteen Doe Company, a corporation, 35 Fourteen Doe Company, a corporation, Fifteen Doe Company, a corporation, Sixteen Doe 36 Company, a corporation, Seventeen Doe Company, a corporation, Eighteen Doe Company, a 37 corporation, Nineteen Doe Company, a corporation, and Twenty Doe Company, a corporation, 38 Defendants. 3490 You are directed to appear in an action brought against you by the above named plaintiff 41 in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, and 42 to answer the complaint therein within ten days after the service on you of this Summons, 43 if served within the County of Los Angeles, or within thirty days if served elsewhere, and 44 you are notified that unless you appear and answer as above required, the plaintiff will take 45 judgment for any money or damages demanded in the Complaint, as arising upon contract, 46 or will apply to the Court for any other relief demanded in the Complaint. 47 48 Given under my hand and seal of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, 49 State of California, this 5 day of Jan., 1938. 11 L. E. Lampton, 51 52 [Seal Superior Court County Clerk and Clerk o f the Superior Court o f the State eg Los Angeles County] of California, in and for the County o f Los Angeles. 54 55 By E. T. Crozier, Deputy. 123 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT --------OF TH E-------- STATE OF CALIFORNIA I N A N D F O R T H E C O U N T Y O F L O S A N G E L E S Southwestern Securities Company, a corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Clara A ppeltofft, A. F. Beal, Della J. Beal, Gerald Brooks, Mabel E. Brooks, Dora M. Burch, Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, a cor­poration, Leo M. Daly, Mary L. Daly, Henry P. Eldridge, Olga M. Eldridge, First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Pasadena, a corporation, First Holding Corporation, a corporation, First Trust and Savings Bank of Pasadena, a corporation, George S. Flintoft, Edna E. Flintoft, James G. Francis, Gertrude T. Francis, Sadie B. George, Willard H. George, Ltd., a corporation, Carolyn Gillmore, Purcell G. Gillmore, George C. Hanna, Sara Harding, Los Angeles Trust & Safe Deposit Company, a corpora­tion, Viola Emery McLain, H. G. Mines, Pearl Voll-mer Mines, W . W . Mines, Julius E. Morgan, Marie C. Morgan, Wellslake D. Morse, Mortgage Guarantee Company, a corporation, W . H. Norwood, Bertha Norwood, Pasadena Building & Loan Association, a corporation, Mabel A. Poole, Annie M. Price, Carrie E. Price, Tarria M. Pushman, Bernice W . Ramsay, Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, a national banking association, Security Title Insurance and Guarantee Company, a corporation, John W . Slater, Elizabeth J. Slater, A. W . Taylor, Mildred L. Taylor, Title Insurance and Trust Company, a cor­poration, Veterans’ Welfare Board of the State of California, a body politic, Howry H. Warner, Mary R. Warner, West Coast Bond and Mortgage Com­pany, a corporation, One Doe, Two Doe, Three Doe, Four Doe, Five Doe, Six Doe, Seven Doe, Eight Doe, Nine Doe, Ten Doe, Eleven Doe, Twelve Doe, Thir­teen Doe, Fourteen Doe, Fifteen Doe, Sixteen Doe, Seventeen Doe, Eighteen Doe, Nineteen Doe, Twenty Doe, One Doe Company, a corporation, Two Doe Company, a corporation, Three Doe Company, a cor­poration, Four Doe Company, a corporation, Five Doe Company, a corporation, Six Doe Company, a cor­poration, Seven Doe Company, a corporation, Eight Doe Company, a corporation, Nine Doe Company, a corporation, Ten Doe Company, a corporation, Eleven Doe Company, a corporation, Twelve Doe Company, a corporation, Thirteen Doe Company, a corporation, Fourteen Doe Company, a corporation, Fifteen Doe No. 423811 C O M PLAIN T TO QUIET T IT L E AN D FOR D E C LA R A TO R Y RELIEF 123 45 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Company, a corporation, Sixteen Doe Company, a corporation, Seventeen Doe Company, a corporation, Eighteen Doe Company, a corporation, Nineteen Doe Company, a corporation, and Twenty Doe Company, a corporation, Defendants. COMES N O W the plaintiff, and, for its cause of action against the defendants above named, shows to the Court, and alleges: I. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned plaintiff was, and now is, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal place of busness in the City of Los Angeles, in said county and state. Iff That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants A. F. Beal and Della J. Beal were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants Gerald Brooks and Mabel E. Brooks were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants Leo M. Daly and Mary L. Daly were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants Henry P. Eldridge and Olga M. Eldridge were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants George S. Flintoft and Edna E. Flintoft were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants James G. Francis and Gertrude T. Francis were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants W . W . Mines and Pearl Vollmer Mines were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants W . H. Norwood and Bertha Norwood were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants John W . Slater and Elizabeth J. Slater were, and now are, husband and wife. That during all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendants Howry H. Warner and Mary R. Warner were, and now are, husband and wife. III. That each of the defendants First Holding Corporation, First Trust and Savings Bank of Pasadena, Willard H. George, Ltd., Los Angeles Trust & Safe Deposit Company, Mort­gage Guarantee Company, Pasadena Building & Loan Association, Security Title Insurance and Guarantee Company, Title Insurance and Trust Company, is a corporation duly organ­ized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and each of said 'corporations has its principal place of business in said County of Los Angeles, State of California. That the defendant Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut, duly authorized to do business in the State of California, and having a place of business in the City of Los Angeles, in said County and State. That the defendant West Coast Bond and Mortgage Company is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State o f Delaware, duly authorized to do business in the State of California, and having a place of business in said County of Los Angeles, State of California. 123 45 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35t /36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 That Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles is a national banking association, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America, having its principal place of business in the City of Los Angeles, in said County and State. That First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Pasadena is a savings and loan association, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America, having its principal place of business in the City of Pasadena, in said County of Los Angeles, State of California. That Veterans’ Welfare Board of the State of California is a body politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having a place of business in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. IV. That the defendants One Doe, Two Doe, Three Doe, Four Doe, Five Doe, Six Doe, Seven Doe, Eight Doe, Nine Doe, Ten Doe, Eleven Doe, Twelve Doe, Thirteen Doe, Four­teen Doe, Fifteen Doe, Sixteen Doe, Seventeen Doe, Eighteen Doe, Nineteen Doe, Twenty Doe, and One Doe Company, a corporation, Two Doe Company, a corporation, Three Doe Company, a corporation, Four Doe Company, a corporation, Five Doe Company, a corpora­tion, Six Doe Company, a corporation, Seven Doe Company, a corporation, Eight Doe Com­pany, a corporation, Nine Doe Company, a corporation, Ten Doe Company, a corporation, Eleven Doe Company, a corporation, Twelve Doe Company, a corporation, Thirteen Doe Company, a corporation, Fourteen Doe Company, a corporation, Fifteen Doe Company, a corporation, Sixteen Doe Company, a corporation, Seventeen Doe Company, a corporation, Eighteen Doe Company, a corporation, Nineteen Doe Company, a corporation, and Twenty Doe Company, a corporation, are sued herein by fictitious names for the reason that their true names are unknown to plaintiff, but that plaintiff will ask leave of the court to insert the same herein by amendment as soon as such true names are ascertained. V. That plaintiff is the owner in fee simple, in the possession of, and entitled to the posses­sion of the following described real estate situate in the County of Los Angeles, State of California: Lots 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 41, 43, 50, the West 37 feet of Lot 33, and the East 57 feet of Lot 34 (measured at right angles to the tangent portion of the Easterly line of said Lot 34) in Tract 5457, as per map recorded in Book 101, pages 16 and 17, of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. VI. That defendants, and each of them, claim some right, title, estate, interest, lien, or charge, in, to, or upon said real estate, or some part thereof, adverse to plaintiff. That the claims of said defendants are, and the claim of each of said defendants is, wholly without right. That defendants, and each of them, have no right, title, estate, or interest in, to, or upon said real estate, or any part thereof. For a Second Cause of A ction: I. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs I to V, inclusive, of plaintiff’s first cause of action herein, and each of them, as fully and with the same effect as if each of said paragraphs, and all thereof, were repeated and set forth at length herein. JW II. Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 31, 1924, W . W . Mines and Pearl Vollmer Mines, being then the owners of all of said Tract No. 5457, conveyed all of said Tract to James — 3— 123 45 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 H. Thomas, an unmarried man, by grant deed dated on said date, and duly recorded August 2, 1924 at 21 minutes past 10:00 o’clock a. m., in Book 4209, page 51, of Official Records, a copy of which said deed, marked Exhibit “ A ” , is hereto attached and made a part hereof as fully and with the same effect as if set forth at length herein. That said deed provided, among other things, that such sale and conveyance was made and accepted upon the express conditions as to the use and improvement of said real estate as set forth in said deed, Exhibit “ A ” . III. Alleges that by grant deed dated August 1, 1924, said James H. Thomas, an unmarried man, conveyed to W . W . Mines, a married man, all of said Tract No. 5457, which said deed was duly recorded August 2, 1924, at 21 minutes past 10:00 o’clock a. m., in Book 3414, page 385, of Official Records of said Los Angeles County, a copy of which said deed is hereto attached, marked Exhibit “ B” , and made a part hereof as fully and with the same effect as if set forth at length herein. That said deed conveyed said real estate “ subject also to conditions, restrictions, reserva­tions and right of way as set forth, in deed from W . W . Mines, et ux., to James H. Thomas, an unmarried man dated July 31, 1924 and filed simultaneously herewith.” IV. That thereafter said W . W . Mines and Pearl Vollmer Mines, his wife, from time to time conveyed lots situate in said tract to the predecessors in interest of each of the defend­ants named herein. That each of the deeds so executed by defendants W . W . Mines and Pearl Vollmer Mines, his wife, conveying any of the lots of said Tract 5457 contained a recital reading as follows: “ Subject also, to conditions, restrictions, reservations and rights-of-way as contained in deed from W . W . Mines, et ux., to James H. Thomas, unmarried, filed for record August 2, 1924” ; or a recital reading as follows: “ Subject, also, to conditions, restrictions, reservations and rights-of-way affecting this and other property, as contained in deed from W . W . Mines, et ux., to James H. Thomas, unmarried, filed for record August 2, 1924” ; or a recital reading as follows: “ Subject, also, to conditions, restrictions, reservations and right-of-way as set forth in deed from W . W . Mines, et ux., to James H. Thomas, an unmarried man, filed for record August 2nd, 1924.” V. That there is an actual controversy existing between plaintiff and defendants herein as to their respective legal rights, duties and interests in and to and concerning the real estate belonging to plaintiff, and in and to and concerning the rights of the defendants, and each o f them, to enforce the purported conditions, restrictions, and reservations as contained in said deed from W . W . Mines, et ux., to James H. Thomas, an unmarried man, filed for record August 2, 1924, in that: (a ) Plaintiff contends, and defendants deny, that the conveyances by said W . W . Mines and wife of said lots subsequent to August 2, 1924, imposed no conditions, restrictions, or reservations whatsoever upon the real estate owned by plaintiff, as hereinbefore set forth and contained. (b ) Plaintiff contends, and defendants deny, that plaintiff holds its said property free of any conditions, restrictions, and reservations whatsoever. (c ) Defendants contend, and plaintiff denies, that the defendants have the right to enjoin plaintiff from the erection or maintenance upon said lots of structures other than as provided for and permitted by said deed filed for record August 2, 1924, and from the use of said real estate for purposes other than as provided in said deed. 4 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 (d ) Plaintiff contends, and defendants deny, that plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and decree quieting its title to its said lots hereinbefore set forth, and determining and declaring that defendants have no right, title, estate, claim, or lien in or to the real estate owned by plaintiff, or any part thereof, where such right, title, estate, interest, claim, or lien is based upon or founded upon any of the provisions of said deed dated August 2, 1924, or upon any deed or instrument appertaining to the title to plaintiff’s said lots. For a T hird Cause of A ction: I. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs num­bered I to V, inclusive, of its first cause of action herein as fully and with the same effect as if set forth at length herein. II. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs num­bered II to IV, inclusive, of plaintiff’s second cause of action herein as fully and with the same effect as if each of said paragraphs were set forth at length herein. III. Plaintiff alleges that at the time the real estate contained in said Tract No. 5457 was subdivided and platted, and at the time the map of said Tract No. 5457 was recorded, the real estate embraced within said tract and surrounding real estate was suitable for and was being developed as high class residence property, and that the owners of said Tract 5457 expected and desired to restrict said tract to high class single residences of the values as set forth in said deed recorded August 2, 1924, and established certain set-back lines and other provisions to attain and accomplish such purpose. IV. That said Tract 5457 is a small subdivision, consisting of 50 lots having a frontage on both sides of Los Flores Drive for a distance of one block between Fair Oaks Avenue and Rose Avenue, and a frontage upon Laurel Drive, a dead end street running easterly from Rose Avenue for approximately 500 feet.. V. That said Tract 5457 and the surrounding properties have not developed as a residence district of the type and character anticipated when said Tract No. 5457 was laid out. That the surrounding property has deed restrictions for the improvement thereof requiring im­provements of a value so much less than the restrictions provided for as to said Tract 5457 as to entirely change the condition of the neighborhood with respect to the type and value of improvements thereon and the uses thereof. That the Huntington Heights Tract, map of which is recorded in Book 10, page 41, of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said Los Angeles County, situated a distance of two blocks from said Tract 5457, is subject to deed restrictions providing that houses erected thereon shall cost and be worth from $2,000 to $3,000. That the Piedmont Heights Tract, situated at the corner of Fair Oaks and Foothill Boulevard, two blocks from Tract 5457, as per map recorded in Book 10, page 5, Records of said Los Angeles County, is subject to deed restrictions providing that no dwelling house shall be erected upon any lot costing less than $2,000. That the Denton Tract, as per map recorded in Book 11, page 170, of Maps, fronting on Foothill Boulevard, Rose Avenue, and Palm Street, one block from Tract 5457, is subject to deed restrictions providing that any residence erected on any lot in said tract shall cost and be fairly worth not less than $3,500. 1 That Tract 8278, as per map recorded in Book 94, page 95, of Maps, situate on the 2 West side of Rose Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Palm Street, one block from 3 Tract 5457, is subject to deed restrictions providing that any residence erected upon any 4 lot in said tract shall cost and be fairly worth not less than $3,500. 5 That a portion of Lot 14, Altadena Map No. 3, as per map recorded in Book 52, page 6 50, of Miscellaneous Records of said Los Angeles County, fronting on Rose Avenue, between " Palm Street and Los Flores Drive, in the block adjoining Tract 5457, is subject to deed q restrictions providing that only residences shall be erected on each lot of 50 foot frontage Jjj and shall cost and be fairly worth not less than $3,000, including the garage. -q That Tract 8411, as per map recorded in Book 95, page 13, of Maps, in the office of 12 the County Recorder of said Los Angeles County, situated on Fair Oaks Avenue, between 13 Palm Street and Los Flores, one-half block from Tract No. 5457, is subject to deed restric- 14 tions providing that any residence erected upon any lot in said tract shall cost and be fairly 15 worth not less than $3,000. 16 ? That Tract No. 1315, fronting on Marengo Avenue, situated two blocks Northeasterly 17 of said Tract 5457, is subject to deed restrictions providing that any building erected on the 18 front 100 feet of a lot shall cost not less than $1500. 19 That the deed conveying a portion of Lot 3 of the Altadena Map No. 3, as per map 20 recorded in Book 52, page 50, of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, provides 21 such property shall be used for residences only, and that any residence erected thereon shall ®|j cost and be fairly worth not less than $3,500. 23 That Tract No. 1580, lying immediately Easterly of said Tract 5457, and immediately gg adjoining Lot 50 of said Tract 5457, is wholly without restrictions, the deed restrictions 26 imposed thereon having expired. 27 That the Johnston & Hay Tract, as per map recorded in Book 9, page 50, of Maps, 28 lying immediately Westerly of and adjoining Tract 5457, is not subject to any deed restric- 29 tions. 30 That the portions of Lots 15 and 16, of Altadena Map No. 3, lying immediately Southerly 31 of and adjoining Tract No. 5457 are not subject to any deed restrictions. 32 That the portions of Lots 2, 6, and 7, of Altadena Map No. 3, lying immediately North- 33 erly of and adjoining Tract 5457 are not subject to any deed restrictions. 3^ That sectional property, not subdivided, located Northeasterly of said Tract 5457 and m lying between Tract 4273 and Tract 1315, is not subject to any deed restrictions. 3° That the real estate adjoining and in the vicinity of said Tract 5457 has been improved H with residences substantially conforming to the minimum deed restrictions of each of said 33 tracts, and that the entire locality in the neighborhood of said Tract 5457 has been improved with moderate residences, the great majority of which cost and are of a value not exceeding A1 $3,000. . J , . . . That the lots and parcels of land upon which residences have been erected m the vicinity 43 and neighborhood of said Tract 5457 are in many cases situated upon parcels having a 44 street frontage of approximately 40 feet. . . . 45 That by reason of the restrictions imposed by deed upon the real estate in the vicinity o 46 said Tract No. 5457, and by reason of the character of the improvements erected thereon, 47 and by reason of*the size of the parcels upon which residences have been erected, the condi- 48 tions existing at the time when said Tract 5457 was platted have substantially and materially 49 changed in that the neighborhood has become a district of small inexpensive houses situate 50 upon small lots or tracts or parcels of land. That by reason of such changes the lots and 51 portions of said lots owned by plaintiff in said Tract No. 5457 have become unsuitable for 52 the uses to which they are now restricted, and that, by reason of such change, said lots now 53 have no value for the uses to which they are now restricted, and cannot be sold or improved 54 for the uses to which they are now restricted, and it will be and is inequitable to enforce the 55 restrictions upon said lots, or any portion thereof, as to the value of residences to be erected 123 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 thereon, and as to the total street frontage of any tract or parcel consisting of one or more lots or of portions of adjoining lots upon which residences may be erected, and said restric­tions are by reason of such changed conditions of no further force and effect. VI. That plaintiff desires to use and sell its said lots for uses for residential purposes, to be improved with residences costing the approximate amount required by the restrictions of tracts of land in the same vicinity as above set forth, and in parcels consisting of the whole or portions of any lot or lots with a street frontage of not less than 40 feet, which is the only use to which said real estate is now adapted. That plaintiff cannot use or dispose of said lots for such purposes without subjecting itself to the hazard of actions brought to enforce the conditions, restrictions, and reservations as set forth in said deed conveying lots in said Tract 5457, and without subjecting itself to litigation to be maintained on the part of the defendants. VII. That there is an actual controversy existing between plaintiff and defendants herein as to their respective legal rights, duties, and interests concerning the property belonging to said plaintiff and concerning the rights of the defendants to enforce the conditions, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in the various deeds above enumerated imposing the same upon said lots of plaintiff in that: (a ) Plaintiff contends, and defendants deny, that, by reason of the changed conditions and circumstances both within and without said tract, the maintenance and enforcement of said conditions, restrictions, and reservations as to the cost and value of residences to be erected upon said real estate, as to the location of the improvements to be erected upon any lot or parcel of land in said tract, and as to the street frontage of the tract consisting of any portion of any lot or lots upon which a residence is to be erected, would be unjust and inequitable, and would not result in any way to the devotion of the property to the uses contemplated by such conditions, covenants, and restrictions. (b ) Plaintiff contends, and defendants deny, that, by reason of such changed condi­tions and circumstances, plaintiff now holds its said property free of any and all such restrictions as to the cost and value of residences to be erected upon said lots, or any of them, or any part or parts of said lots, and as to the location of any such improvements upon such lots, or any tracts or parcels consisting of any portion of a lot or lots in said tract, and as to the street frontage of any lot, or of any tract or parcel consisting of any portion of any lot or lots in said tract upon which any residence is to be erected. W herefore plaintiff prays judgment as follows: (1 ) That said defendants, and each of them, be required to set forth the nature of their respective claims and/or interests, and that all claims of defendants, or either of them, adverse to this plaintiff be determined by decree of this court. (2 ) T hat by said decree it be determined and adjudged that the defendants, or any or either of them, have no right, title, estate, or interest whatsoever in or to the land or premises of plaintiff, and that the title of plaintiff be quieted as against said defendants, and each of them; that defendants, and any or either of them, and all persons claiming under, by, or through them, or any or either of them, be forever enjoined and barred from making or asserting any claim or claims whatsoever in or to said land or premises of plaintiff. (3 ) That this Court make and enter its decree declaring the rights of the plaintiff in and to the premises in said complaint described, and declaring that defendants have no right to maintain or assert said restrictions upon the lots or parts of lots owned by this plaintiff in so far as relates to or concerns the cost and/or reasonable worth of residences to 123 45 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 be erected upon said lot or lots, or any part or parts of any lot or lots, or to the location of any residence upon any lot, or upon any tract or parcel of land consisting of a part of any lot or lots in said tract, or to the stre