Substantially all of the other points appellant has urged in its able and exhaustive brief are related to and result from the insistence of appellant upon its two principal contentions. There are some other minor matters suggested and urged by appellant as reasons why the judgment below should be reversed and these have all had our consideration, and we find none of them of sufficient importance to justify an extension of this opinion to discuss them.

The judgment of the circuit court of Jackson county is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

FRANCIS B. O'GALLAGHER, Appellee, vs. FRANCES M. LOCKHART, Appellant.

Opinion filed April 23, 1914-Rehearing denied June 5, 1914.

I. BUILDING LINES-each case must depend largely on its own facts. What constitutes a substantial violation of a building line restriction is a matter concerning which it is difficult to lay down an absolute rule, and each case must be determined largely from its own facts.

2. SAME―establishment of building line creates an easement of unobstructed light, air and vision. The establishment of a building line by a covenant running with the land in the chain of title creates an easement of unobstructed light, air and vision for the benefit of the public and the owners upon whose property the restricted area is laid out.

3. SAME-what constitutes a violation of building line restriction. A restriction against erecting any building within fifteen feet of the front line of the premises is violated by the erection on such restricted area of a three-story brick, stone and concrete porch of massive construction, with solid balustrades of brick and stone steps with brick buttresses. (Hawes v. Favor, 161 Ill. 440, distinguished.)

4. SAME when party is not estopped to enjoin violation of a building line restriction. The fact that a lot owner is not shown to have objected to two palpable violations of a building line restriction common to all lots in a subdivision for a distance of four blocks does not, of itself, preclude him from enjoining a palpable violation of such restriction on the lot next his own.

5. SAME when a custom cannot be considered in construing deeds containing building line restriction. Testimony of an architect that the term "building line" has a generally understood meaning throughout Chicago among real estate dealers, builders, architects and surveyors, and as so understood it applies only to the main front wall of the building and not to porches or bays, does not authorize the consideration of such custom in construing deeds to lots in a subdivision all of which contain a building line restriction, where it is not shown that such custom has prevailed generally among the grantees of the lots.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN GIBBONS, Judge, presiding.

J. S. DUDLEY, for appellant.

R. HAROLD O'CONNOR, and ALFAR M. EBERHARDT, (CHARLES J. O'CONNOR, of counsel,) for appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE COOKE delivered the opinion of the court:

Francis B. O'Gallagher, appellee, who was the owner of lot 3 in Fifty-fifth Street Boulevard addition to the city of Chicago, filed his bill in the circuit court of Cook county against Frances M. Lockhart, the appellant, who was the owner of lot 4 in said addition, to enforce a building line restriction contained in the deeds of the subdividers to their grantees of the lots in said addition which fronted on Garfield boulevard, executed shortly after the subdivision was made, in 1890. The restriction contained in each of the deeds to said lots, so far as it has reference to the questions involved in this case, is as follows: "It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto * * * that no building be erected within fifteen feet of the front line of said premises; that this contract is to be binding upon the heirs and assigns of said party of the second part." The party of the second part mentioned in the deeds was in each instance the grantee. The bill alleges that the defendant is in the act of erecting a flat-building upon her

lot, and is in the act of erecting in front of that structure, and as a part of it, a large covered porch, with a high railing of solid brickwork and a flight of steps from the front line of her lot to the front of said porch, and constructing a side wall or buttress to said steps of solid brick, and constructing large pillars reaching from the railing or steps of said porch to the roof of said porch, so as to obstruct appellee's view along the boulevard and to deprive him of free access of light and air, and that said porch and the steps extend to the front line of said lot. The bill further alleges that appellee's lot is vacant, that he will build on it in the near future, and that his rents and profits will be lessened by reason of the building on the lot of appellant. The bill prays for an injunction restraining appellant from erecting or maintaining any building or structure in violation of said building line restriction upon the front fifteen feet of her lot. The answer of appellant admits the ownership of lots 3 and 4 as alleged in the bill but denies that she is about to erect any building in violation of the building line restriction, and alleges that if said restriction ever existed it has not been observed by the other lot owners but has been by them generally disregarded; that the other lot owners have built without regard to the said restriction, and for a long period of time have consented to and acquiesced in such violation of and disregard for the building line restriction. That part of the building of appellant complained of was completed before this bill was filed. The court found that appellant had violated the building line restriction, and decreed that she be perpetually enjoined from erecting any building upon the front fifteen feet of her lot, and ordered that she remove from the front fifteen feet of her lot all that portion of balustrades, supports and steps erected upon or extending over into the restricted area, such removal to be made on or before March 15, 1915. This appeal has been prosecuted from that decree.

The contentions of appellant may be divided into and considered under two general heads: First, that the structure erected by her within the restricted area was not a violation of the building line restriction; and second, that appellee is estopped for the reason (a) that he suffered other persons to build porches and other projections within. the restricted area, and (b) that he made a specific objection to appellant of a violation which appellant acted upon, and hence cannot complain of any further violation.

The evidence discloses that the building erected by appellant upon her lot was a flat-building, consisting of three stories and a basement, fronting north on Garfield boulevard. The main front wall of the building proper, being a wall which comprises the front of each of the three flats exclusive of the porch or porches, is located about nineteen feet back from the lot line. The main building is twentyfive feet in width, occupying the full width of the lot. On the north of the building is erected a massive three-story porch, twenty-four feet in width, extending out from the main building a distance of eight feet, and thirty feet in height. This structure comes to within about ten feet and ten inches of the street line. As originally designed, the basement of the building extended out under the full width of this porch, bringing the outer wall of the basement ten feet and ten inches from the street line. Later, and during the progress of the erection of the building, the front wall of the basement was placed back to fifteen feet and three or four inches from the street line, thus bringing it back of the building line established by the deeds of the subdividers. The building is constructed of brick and stone. The porch is of the same construction, with re-enforced concrete floors. At each outer corner of the porch, and midway between, there is a brick and stone pillar twenty inches square, extending from the ground to a height of thirty feet. The floors and balustrades of each story of the porch are attached to these pillars and to the main wall of the

building. The balustrade around the porch floor at the first story extends entirely around the structure, with the exception of the opening where the steps lead up from the sidewalk. The balustrades around the porch floors in each of the other stories extend entirely around the structure, forming a complete enclosure. These balustrades are built solidly of brick. At the first floor the distance from the top of the balustrade to the bottom of the enclosed work is three feet, at the second story the distance from the top of the balustrade to the bottom of the enclosed work is four feet and six inches, and at the top story the distance from the top of the balustrade to the bottom of the enclosed work is four feet. There is no roof over the third floor porch. The front wall of the main part of the building extends to a height of forty-six feet from the ground, being sixteen feet higher than the top of the balustrade around the upper porch floor. The opening between the top of the balustrade at the first floor and the bottom of the enclosed work around the porch floor at the second story is six feet, and it is the same distance between the top of the balustrade and the bottom of the porch at the third story. The inside of the three stone piers or columns is about six feet distant from the main wall of the building. From the top of the first porch floor to the ground is eight feet. From this floor there extend down to the street line fourteen cement steps, enclosed by solid brick buttresses on each side. These buttresses do not extend out on a level or drop at the same incline as the steps, but each consists of three horizontal offsets. The first (those at the top) are nine feet above the sidewalk level and extend out from the brick piers a distance of three and one-half feet; the second are six feet and six inches above the sidewalk level and extend out from the first also a distance of three and one-half feet; and the third are four feet in height, extending out also three and one-half feet from the second. Through the buttress built at the east side of the steps, and next to the porch, is an