The doctrine of "equitable restraints in land."

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content lL~ 0 -1 , SCHOOL OF L.A W S.C The Doctrine of "E ·it ble Re ctraints in Land." A The.sis Pr esented to th School of Law University of Southern California In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Juris actor By Elmer L. Overholt 1924 . • . , -. .. . . • l7b~ THE OOQJ' INE OF Eami R SIB}DU'S. PN LMil). 1- Introduction. k-Origin of the doctrine. (1 )- Short 'bio raphy of Lord C ottenham. B-History of the Doctrine. (1)- Known at common la ,. (a)- Abolish Livery of Seisin. (b)- Risi~ .g im ortance of deeds . ' (c)- Groth of Doctr· e _ ece s·tJ of more rigid enforcement. 11- Classification of covenants . 1 S • A-Affirna -ive coven B-Restrictive cove (1)- American v • • C-Personal covenants. 1s rul es. D-Covenants rurmir. ,i h the land. (1)- Nomenclature in various countr·es. (2)- Essentials of sue cove a ts. (3)- Liability o ran r . 111- Restricti ,ns o re 1 roper • A- estrictions as to c c er or ituation of build111gs or other permanent improvements. R-Restrictions as to the use of prope t ,. fl)- Stat tes ainst erpetuities. lV- Unenforcab e restrictions . A-:fhen restraints are ine fective . R- '/hen co11di tions h ve chariged. C- 1 '11en enforcable, though co11ditio11s have changed. V- General rule ad pted in California. A-N ecessity of a general scheme of improvement. ' B-Condition subsequent vs. equitable easements. C-Effect of changoo conditions on enforcin restrictions. D-Vlho may enforce restrictions arid agai _ t ,horn. ' E-vVhen breacl1 of covenant results in forfeiture . F-Invalidity of violative re trictions. Vll- Conclusions and perso11al o i n i o11s. A-Legitimate ain s for the future . The doctrine of Equi able Restr i 01 L n , . ,t no e - ists, is the result of r u 1 oner 1 development from that period,particularly i n Englis Common Lar, i rr e i·tel rior to · i du.ri tl e enure o Lord Cot enh 1 . C rle C ris o e Pe , Lo c C · lo o E1 l a d , born i Lon on on e 9 o A · , 17 1, n e e . n ted j ist of i t im . He o e Lo : C_ · c llo i _ J , l 36, . •,it,h the · t e of Baro C o tenh • Bo (. 1 d • judge, Lord Co enhrun as e o iet t 0 a r - cip es of e uit e ench b ~ e is 1 a d the excell ce o·n l i ·u - ✓ 1e • B d i e., at e Due J r f Luc a on l e 2 h o A pr · 1, 1 1, a. t e ~ e d · e last e ·· ears of i li e r i LJi ·.o ks I ic no i e orial ·ze im. In c cer , i .. e i of i doctrine, a.p lying to i t e name of Equitable Restraint o Land , Sir C otJ· Jenham expl ined_ 1i reasons for r .ti ti ~ .ble r .,lief i n the f onn of specific erformance, or restraining injunc io11s, by, stating that equity is that great body o tl1e la1vi desigt1ed by necessity t, cure t] e i -idity flexi il· t./ 0 1 Co .on La r r. Vli tl1e increas1:r_g ·11dividual --nd public encroachments on land, it is evident that ank ind is graduall. 1 ut surely pl ci 1 rofit ahead c'"' cor fort . e comforts on li · eii · e e ti 1 for tl e s 1 f ety of 1ell o g ized peacefu aticn , any pri~ cirl , etl er founded in le- 1 ,r e uit· ble juri prt1de ce , ich te s o .. ,reserve t e cora- of 1 · e, is deservin , no of leg 1 e forcenent , but 1 islLtive 1actment . Wit · i ; i to isr ~ r o i e " elivery of seisin", er ic do r ·ne eh ing of a t ~ ig or landf 1 of eart o e 1 nd t o be c veyed, as lie 1 of ivi over to the - 1 - re een ma e, than e posse become prop rtiona.tely at an J lJ.;, c 8 • An 111 CO l it . eed y r nt o • . V 1 .. CO 1 0. 0 p of 1 .J e • d t 111 • 'lOn 0 • ort rJ 1. o_ 1 1 0 • 1es, 1 0 t '. ~ 1 \V il Ll ec and v, s f i t c1 e year 1848, _ a a · die · , • L • 774 , t o-v , · : ' • • ,vheth r a conveyance had n dee • lll \ t, un il live y a • t rov1 11 t" • o E • 1 • o vn in - iti , the deed has 1t is 0~1 1 a •1 co 'tl J is ... a~ by ce • n erte • n con i +io s e 1~ R s r i1ts n L d, lish C o n on L a, ·n t i1 ca a i C Tt1 v • ,o a_ , 2 Phil • "Pl int i .f 'as ov e Square, as 11 • 11 e er e of a v cant~ t il1 L · c e t r ouse for i:ng t e Squar , ol . 1 e rf·• ou.nd kno rn ~ Squ re G ar - den, or Pl a a G run • t n Els · 1 f e, t_ e deed con- covenant by Els , f ii self, .. is • e1rs , a e la· .. 1ti f , h · s ei s , and exec t r and ad- mi11istrator~ t.1a Elms , his l1ei s , and assigns , ould and woul tire .L o t · e, an at a 1 time~ t ereafter at l1is an at the i ,. o m co t h .rges , keep the Squ· a Garden i1 su1 ·icient and • ro1 r re a1 s Squar Gar en an i Pleas- " re r d, 1 mcovered v i bui i1 s, and in neat and or- : nm ental order ; and that it s 10 1 ld be la\'1ful fo i abi t - ant~ f Lei at r Sq are , tenant of e plai1 tiff, on pay- -or same, t have ~eys at thei· O' expen 1 ri ile e of dini sion there\vi at ny ti a in- to said S a e Garden an Pleasur , Ground . After mesr1e conveyru1c s, t is lan cru i11to t e an s -2- . ' o~ t e ef t hose p 1 re as a c ntained nos~ il cov- ena'Ylt w·t 1 ta vendDr, but -4-,at le - Jure ased with notice o t e covenant in the earlier deed of 1808. Toe def n- dant ving ma11·rested an intent to alter teen racter of Square Gar en, an asserti1g t1e ri t, if he sa: fit , to build up n it, the Jlaintiff, il10 sti· -remaine l o\vner of se, eral houses i1 t e Square,fi~e bi for an injunc ion ores r in t e e e o e · ·ound, or usir1g it or o 1er pur ·Jose t an as Squt r Gard en d Ple s re Grun i 1 1 an pen tate d uncov re uit~ buildirigs•. An injunct·on ~as ranted, fo]l \ved r a otion to dischar e t}1e er \V11ic a refused. I ... is o i 11 · o .. , L, d Cotta am stated t ~_at a court as jurisdiction to enforce a contract bet,veen tl1e o ner of land and is nei.-, bor urc}1asinJ a part of it, that t e 0 er s 1 all use or a stai f o. u ing t e lan purchased i11 a r- t· 1 r ,a , is not dis ute • In 1is contract the o~mer of · certain houses i11 the Square sol the land adjoini1,g ith a covenant from e purchaser not to use t 1e an for any ~1e ,. purposeft a"Yl a S uare Garden. It ,as contended not t at ,.Jhe vende e could violate hat co.1tract, but t, at he c .. d sell t e land, a .d t .L e pure aser o 1 violate t 11 e covenant wit1 1 ut the court avi1 an O\ver to in erfere. It rs1as said t-T e cov nant di not rU11 ri t t 1e land, and efo e une o · tn c urt. Bu~ the question was not whet er t e covenant rtms ~i · t e - and , buu 7l1ether t e arty be penni tted to use t e lan i a an- inconsiste t i e contract ent.,red in~o . 1 _i vendor , and otice o i h he ased. O f cours e he price wo 1 ld be acted 1 y t1 e cov n · t , and n tl ir1g would be ore inequitable · to all , , t e i · 1 urc ser to sell .. e next ay for a -3- greater price, i11 consideration of the assignee allov1ed to escape f~om liability ic 1 heh.ad hirnself unde tak ~ • If tl er 1au a mare agreeman and no covenant , courts of equity wi 1 enforce it agai11st a party purchasints with notice of it, for if an equity is at ached to property of ovmers, no one purchasing v1ith no ice of • the equity can stand in a different situation from the party from whom he purchased. Ne\v York \Vas the first st· te i 11 Alnerica to give judicial ex pression to this lot i , as is ill st ate in t he case of Trus- tees of Colura _ i C ; e .... e ch, 18 tl v Yo Appeals 73, decide_ i11 1859, one year folloving the famous Tulk vs • .. Aoxhay case,to-,vit: • The plai11tiff1a.n r tor oft e defena_ant, O'n1ers of adja- cent land i11 the ci-t. 1Je :1 York, entered into an agreement, cove-nantine; for thElnsel ves and their res ective eirs, suc- cessors, an ausigns tat l ots should n ver be used or occupied for J busine s or p blic llr o e ,:,haJ.soever, an the defendant too- title expressl~r ubjec L o t_ at agree1ent: It ,~ras } 1eld that t h e utua.lit) of -'-he covenant fur1 ished g od co siderati ~ n, and that t h e ree et vas not void as ir. restr int f trade, or i .. posi lmdue restrictions u ., 011 e llse of the ro - er.J.. , ; al o, tha it vr--- s,'bi dir €; u on succesuors i n interest to par ties , ~lt 1 o no pri,ity of e~ta v e betreen or· i alp r t1e existed. The sl · ct of covena11 i u·vid d into -'- .:op r ts , o-~,it: (. )- Coven ts Ahich run ·rith the land, (2)- arid urel_ r personal covena ts. It is not the purpose here to treat the subject of per s <l coven·nt, for it is only hose cond· ~ions ~ich survive t e ran or, ei her after his e .J..h, or a ter h ha conveyed all of 1 is right, title an i ter , ith which this treatise will deal. It a ears t tit m ~ters not so much that certain conditions exited at the tin1e of e co!veyance, but that t econ itions - . ' or 1ed a.11 elan nt of the cons1 eration of the c ,11veyance, in or er t t e uita le relief m ay be iven in he bsence oft e fulfill ment of these co11ditions . This pri _ ci}'le is set forth in an excer- t a or t h o inion in th case f Van Re11ssel er vs . Read, 26 }l .Y. 58: • In e uity, J. e ue t ·on v l e her c venant'"' rm1 ith the 1 d or 11ot, is of no i ortance . The import a t ue ti on · s ·r et er or not the purchaser bought subject tot em, eo that his abid irig b the fo ned 1 el ment of con idera · on . Toe i . ·rf are q t er " . !11 Ju eric I t.1 e t o bo affir • • land i t ha e 1 ctr i ri 0 E ... • 1ve c o e of e n 11 0 h 1 rrler ·ta e Re J.r • t on J.J est • . 1 C V , -4- t r • lies \J a onlJ t o restri c • • Pro e -sor Pom e i n hi e." v,ork on ve o e an E uit bl J i prudence, ~ection 272, 273 and 129~, ·ver 1 cial~ a~es t e t a r·r . tive and restrict ·ve c ,ven- ants .• Sect · o lowed to restrain t hA violatio s: "I junctions are frequently of co enants re tricing the u e of land . ,fue he o .rne of laYJ.d enters i _to a covenru1t con- • • cer n1 it, whe11 in deed the grantor or grantee covena s, or 1n le e the lessor or lessee covenants, concerni g the 1 d COll- , e rning i s use, restr· cting certain pacified uses, stipulati !- or certain specified uses, subjecting it o easements or servi t udes, and the like, c tncl the lanu is after,rards conve:yed,or sold or passes to one •mo has ac ual or constructive notice of the cov enant, +he grantee or purchaser will take the premises bound by the ove ant, a11d v1ill be compelled i equity, either specific n.lly. to execute it, or flill be restr i ed from violating it, a th suit f he original covenantee, or of a:riy otl1er person who has a suffic .· ient equitable interest, al tho perhaps without any legal · i terest -5- in such a parfonnance. The applic , · on of this octrine is wholly independent of the qua tion -whether the covenant is of such a char acter as to rtn1 \vi th the land. It is a creation of equity and can be enforced b. an equitable re1nedy. rofessor Pomeroy in Porn. Eq. ur. Sec/· 273, says: ery ovm- er of real property has the right so to deal with it as to re strain its use by his grantees within such limits as to prevent its approprintion to purposes rhich .rill in1pair the value, or di- minish the pleasure of the enjoy1nent of the land which he retains. The only restriction on this right is that it shall be exercised reasonably, \Vith due re,garcl to ublic policy, and vritl1out creating any u.nlav1ful restraint of .tr,·de·~ ~ _t is auestionable ,vl1ether affinnative covenants of a similar • nature vill be enforce in equity. Professor Pomeroy in Pom. Eq.Tu~ . action 295, says: "I have, as it will be seen, continued to state ti1~ octrine in its. o~t general fo:rr: as applying to affirm "iive as ·;ell as re trictive covenants, and as rendering t1e o.~n er liable to the affir1ative duty of specific perfonnance coven ants, as well as the negative r enedy of restraint fro J violati11g it, notwithstanding recent decisions b English Courts holdirig th t the doctrine applies onlJ to r e trictive covenants, and ~ oes not exterrl to hose vl1ic stipula e for affirmative acts." It i~ not the purpose here to di~tinguish an ex lain how the doctri e of Equitable Restraints on Land arose in tl1e various coun tries, but princip ll r to show that it does exist, and ,here it first arose, encl from i'fhat source vre derive he doctrine which is o I applied in America11 courts. This doctrine is kno ln by v rious names in i fferent jurisdic ti n. 1ost oft e c se have aris en in England,and in Ne'- York, • ! Jersey an Penns lvania. In some jurisdictions, euch covenru1ts - - . . are called covenants rurmi ri th the land. Elsev,here they are said to be in the nature of easements, and~still other jurisdic tions the re si called r strictive covenants. Under whutever name it is called, the principles pplied a1·e practically the same, so th t forte pur oses oft i treat ent, e may isre ar the diversity. Even ,l en they are cove11 nts runr i vi h he land, it is hel th~ e covenants enforcc1ble onlJ i11 equity. It v1oul J seem that the ost accurate designation is "Equitable Easements•, for these terms describe he pcrticul to the exclusion of all ot11ers. The oc rine of Equitu 1 Restraint on Land recognizes the • equitable maxi ., •Equi tJ, re rds form, less than su tance". In each case, o .. ccordi to t e be er i · , th e intention of he par ties i s to be dete ·ned. Some ju iQdict·ons insi t tat the in- e- tions of e p ties ust be clearl 1 expressed, mile others olc1 h he inte t ·fill b inferred. In an-' case, ,he plica ion of he rule of he octrine ecomes d penden u~ on t e urroundi ci rumsta11ces. Thi principle ic:, well illustrated by Professor Porn- I iro_ r ·n Section 27h of ... i ror on Equitable Jurisprudence, to-\:it: •If an ac ion is rot ~ht b .. allowed upon the princi:/e that a part ·or, an injunction fill be shall not be pe~illitted to se land in a manner i consistent ,,ith the cont,r ct enter jd into ith i vendor, ~ith no t ice of vn1ich he purchased. This is sub ject o lim itation in some jurisdictions, that the restriction t touch or concern, or e tend to the support of the land. lhen ·t clearly appears that sl ch restric ions re intended to inure to t1e benefit of other land the time f convey ce, or for Jerl.l el o the ·ranter, a ubse quent grantee of such other par- cel y e ~force the re tric · on b~,r injunction. The princi at. ques- . ~ et ine the extent of t e re tr· c io11. The difficulty -7- rises ·m n the coven nt erel re tr ins • e us v,i hou indic t- i the be r .• If h 1 e is explicit i i tent, the right of the rantee . tad." ere o mer of a tr ct of land lays it out in buildi ng lot , malces a 1 < sho 1i11t9; a ener· 1 buildinp; scheme , an sell in accord• here~ ith t o • ance v,r1ou of the eeds, he • 1n e strictions • ·l 1 C' C e 0 to make enjoin a n i duce et fo c an he purcha ers, inserti r estrictions in all ill e i fe ed . The pur ose oft e re- en fi , 11 of the land_ in the tract and p ch se . Accordingly, 011e rantee may or one o takes ith notice . Son e ours v int· ed th t ei her a ,ene· buil ing sc eme, or an press declaratio11 i the covenan is essential, bu Jhe better • v ew s o e at t e i ~e t y be ot er 1 ise de ermine . In ere vas a e eral scheme of improvemen • . . • 1 1 u 1c1 en o ho~ an ·nten to 1ve "' rant e i J :ht t o enforce: - 144 ~Je.ss.397 Hamlen vs. Werner . 2 .. 1 .J . E_gi 1~8i l~i f . eld vs • . Henning. 3 - 26 .Y. Iu5 T a 1 dge vs . ~( ~ River B The cloctr ·ne of Equ · t,able Rest • an S 01 e • Equ · t · ." He ~110 • to 0 com s l e • Land ity C ean harids" . The r an or 'JTl 0 inserts a condition e happening of v.hich the esta a ranted to the J e ranter on h · s re-entr 1·ke • 0 C'e , • l lt a cl use Jainrc t th i:r cott . O"' e ere po 11 im. I ti • a le an qui eld at, • en 1 • • • re lC 1 n 1 S 0 • rl . so reco 1 es st come r i th stbsequent, on rantee ma re- ert • a - C se of ou" t, be construe .. a- P of e or Po eroy s nnar · e t i prin i ·fe i~ Section 280 of • 1'3 ,ork on E · ·t bl J .. ·sprudence, ,o-v1it : "A person ,vho see 1 s , en o~ ce coven mt1st erm -8- .. . . • o such bre ch of stipu a- tion as will frustrate all the ban fit ~1a roul _ o her ise ac- crue to the other partie o the agreement. One · 1 ho stands by and ac uiesces in repeated violr tions y he defendant an others, can no be heard to d ny e i h .• I . t1 e ca e of Ocean Ci~ Associ ion vs . C ha f , 6 N.J. Eq. 156, it v1as hel that even a grro1tor ho sells off e tate i.. lots vii h r estriction , ill lose his right i n equity; if he permit th· e other gr antee~ to violate hes ri s. Toe rue r ts p o11 tl1e equitable ound that, if an./ one o has the r ight to en force the covenant, end so preserve he condi ion which h e cov enant has esi ed o lreep mal te· ed, shall acquiesce i . material lter atio11s of tl1ose conditions, a11d he cannot thereafter ask a court of e tli ty to assist hin1 in pre e:rvi1 t em . 'Jhere a party ha .. violated the restrictions in his om deed. he cannot enjoin viola ion by others , even tr .. ough he covenant violated by t l1e pl i ~- iff is entirel.t different from that disregarded by he efendant . T his same principle was set fort in Alvord vs. Fletcher, ~l N.Y. Supp. 117, e,nd i . Page v • l.u1 r ay, 46 li .J .Equity 325. ~where viola~tions b., the pl aintiff are not substantial, and violations y other par ies have been in places remo e from the plaintiff's lot, an injill1ction rill not be denied. To e injured party m ust make prompt application for relief, and m ust not know i 1~ perm·t m on J o be exp. ended withot1t taking an act ion. This rinciple is v,ell illustr tad i n M cGuire v • Caskey, 62 Ohio State 19, ad i Trout vs. Lucas, 54 N.J .Equity 361. A mere breach of covenant, even though not accompanied by dam- . n e to the plaintiff, ives the court jm;:adiction to grant an in- j .,nction. The moment the court r· ds that there has been a breach of covenant, that i~ n injur · , and th court has no right to re- -9- e 1 intif le pecific erformance of 1i~ o tr ct. is principle is described by Professor Pomero.r in ection 134.-? of is 1ork on E u ·table Jurisprudence, anct,alsu, ir1 - .. e case of \/alker vs. ~ 1 c1 ul ty, 45 • • upp. . • • • • i r. .Tu tic oi11ts out the ranter's posi~ion 1 1 11 0 1n- • • r • rJhilde • f"'\" 11 C 0 C enz1 vs. 0-Vll • \.d. ' • ff renders of uilding estate entered into covenal not 0 au- t}1orize the use of l old lots • • 11consisten • 1n •4 m 1 1 • • ondi of uildi1 cheme ess ec1 :iee and 1 ,ns exp 1n - ·,err , b it . A st t ent f . • . • ln _ l p· n 11 10n e11d.or \7 o exec t s · e e , m on e inj several purchasers to bur, i could l1avA be 11 .ade 1i~ 1 fo al words." .lhile uildi~s est ·ct· on e t 1n o.:) 01 e art of e o of it, .c-or 1 - · od ovenant o n-u on estrictions placed upon land by t he granters, the rules of the do tri11e of Eq - itable Restrai11ts on Land re not confi11ed o rner ., rost ictions as o , e c 1a • te or • 10n o ildings, but appl 1 as vell t o e trictions a to t ei 1 se. fer frequentllf it is st ·pul ated t11at no in oxi ,ating liq1or ~ hall be sold . on ie - rem1ses. ese estrictions are sustained on the 0 ro 1d t1a r, + as .. e Gt pa ,.J _ igh . • • of .. li e~ --ty, to preven 1 spo s int -:> p 0 lC use -r e ' I . . . , t1e ral u e of tl1e re ai11 ·ng 1 d, • - ee as l .1 1 - or l m- ir its elig ibili~:r for other use • • estrictions ---rol1ibiti o- t e • of • . the • ill b rr. 111c on 1 0 nox1 ,1 s us .. es s on -premises - ... J.. . d • 1, l.J 1· O" 0 .. l 11 r:, • I 1 l e J. J.. • • . J. i4 1 OU l.r l; I , r1 c l 11 .. en., i ·s u .. e ,r e • t of .o:ngolian A f . e pre 1ses s e 0 1can r OS enable otl1e • • 1 • 0 r one an 1 ; n 0 1 0 , . , • 1 • ·1 1 r n e 11 - .. ' 1 nd . . tro id 0" t 1i .... • s i-. i l ce 1 S s .. om V en r r - trictions are pt i to 1 of e eeds iven b the ranter, and he be 1 m de a part of tl1e i ducenen top rcha e. This ·s V/6 1 ill r t d • 1 389, md • • or ., Jones, 23 Barber 153. • le i ic C I V . 1 ed . n e e a e o Has ell vs. • h • • 11 e 0 11 1n )~ C lif • . e e un ur hero th . • Ga r, • o. . equ r r1 e an e e ee r vr·g 1t, 23 · .J .Equity e ca e of Bronner v. g o u e • • 1c.1 pr n- e - e land in a particular manner, with a vieY to more arnple Jnjo:yment of the ad joining lands of the grantor; afterwards, b. voluntary t of tor nd those claim ·ng und ,.r him, the character a11d conditions of the land became so ~reatly alt &d. t1 o e te en- fits were n i el~r o-o e nd t1e o · ef sed to P-rant • n- • j u.ncti on. Th· s . + ti • 1 . lust d • he of Sayers ..J n (.'I 1 a n case C 1 ? Ch. D. o, • 7 .. to-Nit : V • rier ec 11 . , , " The o vn r of e h ot ovenant d . t, : ·11 ,n tl e vendors, and vlith tl1e ovmers of e ..L s, ot t uil a shop o l vl 8 , tra e O n ion be ·YlP-: b t I .. C 0 an r ,- e n. \ "! e I u . ' e of .J., 1 • t♦ t1 of anotl e lot ,•mo v1as I e 0 owner V J. • "off" li o re train 11 o- e - - op - ~ fror.1 br k. • ·t don l t s 0 enru fa p oved t a 18 ct of .J. ope a become l.J changed, J. t • • .J. • h e tate 0 u 41 l 1 . 1) po , I.J e 1 s • ential p opert for v1 ich J. e covenant ha bee ent re ·e 1 , lJ ac iled, - it I s, therefore, adiudged inequ_ i t ble to , enforce tl1e specific perfo ance of . e ('\ 1 . t ~ d 0 an e I , I al • C nd e p 0 w; • ' • rded damages, the - 1- • court of Chancery ~JJ.an ante tained a bill; otherwise the bill was di missed. The rel ive rigr1ts and remedies of l1e parties re Jell sum arized in tl1e first volume of Story's Equitable Jurisprudence, to wit: "In tru h, t e x Jurisprudence, respect· of contract_, · not m is of ,rhole bra11c}1 of E it b e the recission and specific performance t of i ei er part, bu it i ate • he cou t; not • • e on n • • 1 1 _i ~retion,depenctent upon the m ere pleasur of t e e, u of hat sound d reasonable din r · on rhi , 30 e s i self as f as it b . en 1 rule ·nci Jles, bu , a e u i1ne, wi~ hold li f c ording to the circun1stance of e c parti a case, when these r es an pin ·ples vill ot fu ni h e ar ies. It would be a rate of tirre t o attempt t o limit t11e pri11ciples, or except·ons, which the complicated transactions of parties, a~d ever changing habits of societ m., t iffe ent ti es d · e d.fferen circu,nstances, re uire 1 I ,u.. j c n r. Th m ost e _ o o b i ~ e rev · ev1 some of t e 1 adi1 inc ·ples ides t o di- 11d exceptio11s \vl1ich past t ·m.es }1 ve f rect futur'e i11 1i ·es. i sl1ed, as " a ity cannot b·nd ns ·ence of the art an itsel ecree, bu in , a i 1 e 0 a d t 1e nd , and compel him to • er orm 1 cordi~ to conscience oo fai • I n1 n ·s - ot necessar t t u h a be i e ju i d · 1er ted ru1 • bro • • Ll ·1 c e • 1 0 f c- un b I ee are ~· hin tl1e state ·vhere • l t, for,in all sui-,s il1 e uit , -12- 1e rimar decree ·sin persona., and not i11 rem. • " Equi -'-y is i11 the l1abi t of i11ta · osi o l.)ran · re ief in case of o r ts ·e pact · ~~ re 1 rope· v o a far gr eater ex t ,ent than in cases especting personal ropert • E · rill 1ot interfere to decree a specific e fo ~ t .. C :n se • d • ly e • abl ,.e such a decree. ~ • re 1 fiO e l 1 0 l • 1 not ·r , • adequate . " Wl J. Vi 1S e rules of t }1i oc e stlmln d u i11 DeG • . on- fllOU h Beach Club Ho se Con1pany, 50 .J . quit, 329, s foll o ~s : " 11.he act · on is l1el d not to be n1ai 1ta ·nable bet , . ; n pu chasers not par 0 ir") ·n cov n - t, in h e follo,YiTIF- ases: (1) ~ ere it oe not appear that he covenant was enters i~to to car out some general schmne or plan for ha im rovement development of the p o er 'f 7 ic:i .I. f the d end t • 1S - regards in so me particular . (2) ~/here i-'- oe f orte benefik of 0 pear t t e cove ant was entered in o 0 " • ., 1 s be- come ov vner . (3 ) Jhere it ppears t hat e covenant was not entered · 1 o o the benefi-'- of sub e ent ur s, . , _ o:nl , or f if- of t ... . e I o e 1 1 e, 8..."Vt 11 ~ nex ( ) .'here • has l pp s covenan cons ·d ...,rati on of e V n1 1 ina t ' cha • ( ) ' e • , out . 1 :render i • .J. ..L • • appe r t lJ e o 1--11c • t, act r of 1 se 0 ~ e s uO efea t1 pu· ose~ of en r ce ent. nreasonable . ·ol ..... l e • e1 of • r1n . 0 en 0" ee 1 bor 00 nt, - • t - 111 d hus o In the case of Be ls • e 138 s . 138, e .. le a ov1n s f llovvs: - l - "But • • l rv y of inten • of • 1 a 10 1 r l , i 1 order to make the rule applicable, it J. tl IJ ppe r f 01n tenns of l1e f t e • • .J.. trr oundi1 , or on1 l U 10n an (.1. e c · r ur st, • • nte ion of antor • ce , 1 w e e a- , 1 ins ,rt · 1 the estriction, 0 rea e vi .... ude or r in- 1 t v11i c 1 ,, uld inu e t o t e hould · be annexed .J.. o · t nefi of 1e l c-: i1 ti ff ' s 1 , t 11 ., •" e In secti on 279 Professo Pomeroy's w ork, previously alluded to, it is explained tl1at cert i11 :re t iction.s become nenforcab e , by reason of their ine f ct ·ve ess, t o-\ri t : "The purposes of 11 restrict· ons i e i \; borhood 11 o enefi certain land . W hen the ch r cter of t e anged , e e t i tion is of no value to fitted, n inj mction vill be refuse • t}1e l and\in ended o e If e u e of 1 land i s rest ict to re iL n e L u1 poses, it / oulu be i11 q11i b e t o e force tl1e covenant after t e nei~hbor- h ood had so c anged t 1 t . . . 1 a J 1111 po ert va sed exclus ·ve- y o · business purposes. To enforce it 011ld simpl . lessen the value of he p· opert. vrit, out accomplishing the p r ose for , .. ich the r st iction . - 11 Je . HoN ver, ~11ere he .. e triction, n ot • i - - s ta1 clin::-) the c} a f!e of the u e of e a nc1 ui ir1gs, is t ill 0 u t tL 1 v l1e t 1e ominant lot, e uity , ·11 restrain its violatio11." I ee 1 hel l t 1he e an inj nc · on · 1ould rvork a re t dship, drun es a b a in liet1 ereof . It wa so held in the ca s of Landell vs.Hamilton, 34- Atlantic Re orte 663, an Zip v . Br er, 5 .Y. S upp . 24 • In ca e of Langraa ·cl vs. Reed, 159 1ass.409, i t ,a l1e J t 1c. t l ere a estr · ct ion expires ~ lap. e o"' . 1me en ' of a oceedi c- or 11 injunction , damages 11a b e e Co pany v l,J . Bren11an i. i11 acco -1 -- n arded. • '1 ith this a s ch C , it be i1 ~~ a e .r Y or , c s e n OU11d in 2 ... 1: .Y .Supp. 784. In t e fai 1. ece11t se of Ewe tsen vs. Gers ~n e , 1 6 Ill J 3 __ , the Illinois o rt 1 i om t e • Eq it vill not, as, rule, 0 nforce a restriction, where, the acts of the rantor }o i1 pas it, or by 1ose 'lo de- rived i tle unde im, t .. 1 e po e ty, and that i!'l t e v·c- • has • its char t r nd • orn ent, to 111age, so C 1n env1 an tl1e use to • it be put to make • unfit of- V. lC1. a 1 or lli1p itabl for use, if est ~r-ic • be nforced · , ·1 ere e ) 0 or 0 , J.. elief ,oul e g Ga , r 11 . p 0 t ., e o 1 er and f no v benefit to e o 1:>l i1 nt; or \ ere t e com 1 inant h s ra i~1ed or abando1 e .. t e .str·c ion; or i1ere it appea fro · 1 all of t e vidence ta~ i 1 be agains equity t o enforce - ere- stri tion injun ion , _e ief will be denied, and~ e pa ty i 1 be left to _ a ever re e .. y e hav ~ at lavv." In sorae insta11c e , o vever, al thougl1 the ondi tions are changed, he OU t, i · sere io , t -y .... efuse o eny t 1 e en orcen ent of the res ic io s i .. posed in the deed . 1' i i fall i · lust ated in the C liforn·a C se of 1iles v . Clark , 44 Cal/ Appeals 39, to- Vvi t: ·- •J'he defendant an tv,o other partners purchased one undred an ~e acres of land, an ~ ivi e ~ it i to three tr cts, the three p rt1 1e· s o vni _ the land, 1 u~ the ti..1..le t and i1 ; in t1e 1 a.1110 0 onl· ., o of et . Tl e first tract of fortJ ~one acres as desimed exclu ire y for first · class r sidenca property, ,,it linit tions and restrictions for :residence pt1rposes on y, r8q: . .1i ri111? t i/O f 11 stories not less t _ an fiftee11 hundred ol- i 1 value, ixt fence, o • l C 11 et fro 1 t e fro1 t line ,it} a four foot c t, and no o le l ose, tene -15- ments, or oil ,~ells, d 10 transfer w allowed t, other tan e1nbers of the Caucasim1 race. No ap ras recorded ri th . .1he C ount-rr recorder. One l ot was solcl to one Thresher v110 erected. ~5CS , 000 .00 home upon it. In t l1e -· .,i e a ap v1as rec or ed ch t1e e t·iction y i c ea i ~ e buildi1M re~tric- tion f o 1 ,000.00 o £25,000 . 00 , and escin. i1 oO. e o the o ig i 1al restrictions. The partners offer d other lots in the sru11e tract o · sal e for otels and p t r entt ur oses . T laintiff vas rante ~ 1 injunction, and the r estrictions ,vrere. m odified to read· est bli he , the ori f- inal agre 1ne· t . TI1e defe11dant offered evide1 1ce to s.i.10 ~1 tl1a.t t he c a t r an_ co - di tions ere soc as t o e ~ 1 e 1 und esirabl e for a residenti 1 ai trict . I e opinion t e ,urt tat tat al - t o crh ul e sur ~oun · 110;s a c arige , o t at ~he land especial l esir ble -or i class residence; yet t e r estric - tions vere in i1 g on every l ot int e tract . TI ese r est r ic tions were or tne e1 1efi t of every o mer and ran 'Ii th the land .• The first deed establisl1ed the restrictions, so t e ven dors w re unable later to convey a greater title t,1ru1 tl1ey o med." T11 C alifornia, as is i11dicated i n the case of !4iles vs . Clark, la~t cited , t he ~~les relating to the doctrine of Equitable Re '"" trai11ts on Land are st ic -t:,l.., interpret~ea_ ancl enforced . O ne bu;y i r? property r1ith the und .,rstanding t~ ut it i s r estricted, and i n reliance on tl e existe11ce of a =-->eneral plan of i1nprovement for tl1e r le tract , does ot v~ e rit ht to enforce ·he restriction i st another ra11tee rho takes vi th full 11owledge and notice · of the r estriction., t e covenants bei c.r a part of each and every eed to lot in t e tract, and the deed sh ov,ine that an u11ifonn -16- ' plan must ave been in existence . Toe court~ do not favor forfeit ures, a.nd i:n the construction of a co11veyance, ordinaril: to a void forf i t,Lr , co11 ~i io .s v1ill e co11 t ued as coven 11t , hen · this can reasonably be done . Tl1e right of tl1e O\vner ol a lot t o enforce a covenant restrict i T of the use of anoth r tr ct, ntered i 11 o 1 et een forn1er 0 1 m ers, depends primarily on the covenant 1~ving been cde for uhe ' benefit of the land e • r ac1 S'=.id lot . Court \ ill not enforce a p11rel~y7 pe1 sonal oo vena11t m de for the personal benefit of the original in ~ctio1 by a vendee of another lot i t e s tract . This princir fe is i'1ell illustrate:1 i the opinion of , the case of Bresee Vu . Du.1111 (1918 ) 17 Cal . 9 .. . Lo - 1 :it: • Undoubte ly covenru1t . . 1 pos1 uildi been fre e1tl. up ld u , t e court r~ tric ions have r ~ re slo I to declare sucl1 bt1r ens on r ., .1 pro1 erty t o exist, unless it clearly J ears fror. ~i1 ee .,_J of t onv y ce not Oi 1., t t a ge .- eral scl1erae n ir 4prov er Je11t . em plated, ut al if a OI 1S con o, g antee of + . t J_ vl011 1 a G it i not , t e lru d . I t mus be ovenante seeks to en ore ~estric- Jere er 011al covena11t , 1 asse ·,it le r -:: evide1 • I t t ere rictions re no 11relJ erso11al covenants .. d,, f or t e perso11al benefit A oo exan ple of , 1erson!"ll cove11ant i ~ f o nd i n the ca e .,,. of Berr. n v • Hotel S vo , 1 0 C 1. 5 ,9/, •O- rit: Te 1 in iff ola_ lo to t1e pr dace~ 01 o end'"' t, he de contci . a co1di ion th t t e o uil c hotel v lued five 110 Salld 0 r , riot e. ven e J fro 1 t ro ne r., an l elve ,,et fro t fro. t e 1 o· co ner, aid · lc1ir r·· to e er c ed in s ixt lie , an e ays, c111 -17- • • t r , 1n o e ~le ~ r C of ire . 0 f ilure ere- o , tl1e lain iff co 1ld, on t nder of 1250.00, compel r ec onv ey- . a11ce . The defendant threatened t o build ,,ithin the tv1elve foot line and ,..hut ou+ the li 1t. TI1e pl intiff 'vi s denied an injunctio11 011 the theory t at ltho h the r strict ion Y-as for the benefi t cf the land , it ·ra a ~ e1· e e:r•('t on 1 covenant , 0 t ere \Jras 0 en- . 11 • fort benefit of 1e land, of an, rtic - 10n 1 or p ular property ,,h tsoever . It I s a perso1 1 coven nt sol el in f - n l e - fo~ . refer to other var OI or l ere s no nc J c 1 }I a.n , , • t d scri l.Jed . A -'- • an no 0 1n e e r~ ei lJ er ~: '! 0 o tner .lp n , nd J_ • ed, t rchaser cannot OI o· e~ c.ec. 1 e - e s sequen p be Cher ed 1itl1 kno" 1 le e h - i.J t e or i . · 11al gra11tor o:med 1 • IllC enef · :, e ,_ , . ere , _ e • • o ,.ever 1011 1s eft i . e cov nan ee . I n C lifo· ni a , _ e Yi _ re c~:r m i n 'c co a~ ce - ~it11 st t- uto .. r exect1ted atio11°, en cont in restrictive covena ts v 1i h e r,1 c.nt to eral pldn of i. prove en "' d develop- rnen or ~ e . en fi , of 1 lo 1all .. er · s F c nve d I ro 11 illu tr· ted in ett, 44 C al . Ap1eals 394, t o- rit: Te l . i .tiff to t de e .. anJ. vi re ric"'-ions i t 1e deed t 1 t • e p e 1. e o e u ed or r e·~iclence 1 r oses o 1 ; tl1a t no u i 1 i o~ otruc re latever , o er t m firs t 1 ast t o full \.#to ie i n ei .J t .-,I • C es1 n e o 0 t 0 ~5,000 . 00 . Th d en , t co truct d a c 1ple ... d li . , 1 on1., e f 0 ou e . T .i. ) intiff ed i njunction forbiddi . t c fend to allo· e • 111 • o r em 1 011 e court stated .L V d. ·- 1 1ce, . t C nno , . ... _,.. e e· e ~ '"d • pr1v e residence. ltho~ ~ h uut 'I' rd ppe ranees compl"r v,ith the covenant, t e i terior ar· angement violates the covenant. Uniform restrictiv covenants cont ined in deeds exect1ted purst1ant to eneral plnn of i rovemE!lt anc d velopmen for tl e benefit of all lo s i . the ract, .re v~lid an will be strictl~,r enforced, and an ir1junction will lie without sho, i1 ~ of actual amage or substantial injury or actu 1 dar1 e . C lifornic Cotlrt hav ~ hovm th i1 ,·illi ITT1es , .ov1ever , to co11strue restrictive clat_s as co11ditio11s subseq ent and ot as n ere personal covenants, 1hen the ,ordi_ _ an 1 circumstances v r rant it, e .s is vell ill str ted in Firth vs .r, 1 rovic}1, 1 0 C 1 . 2 7, t o-\\'it: The -lai tiff olc . 1 c. .L e o on ~ c re · ·t ro- vi ~ion ir1 . e eed t 1 t t}1e con tyance . acle n _ t _ e r ec:11 rop- erty 1 as so _ sub · e.,t o t}1e con i ,io11s t no ) il · · :tever, e~cept a rivrte r ✓ i oence 1it 1 cu to n out ·1 ·ngs 1 e e ect , pl~.ced, or pernitted 011 said re1 ises, or p rt "'"l1ereo~ and hat su h buil in 0 sh 11 be used as a privater sidence only, the n1inimur1 cost i .1!100 . 00, i d ~i ion to ot er restr·ctions. A bre ch of sue con i tions , occurri ~ ft r le deliver oft e c e e , ,10 1 fo r f e it, t i ~ 1 e o 11 J g · 1 ~ • • 1 s a c 1v1 s , .n _ , e 1 n !OUl eve r o the -ran o . Sc ere conveye the lo • 1 ues- t io11 o 'he ~efendan . o ui t m $800 .00 home o J.. e lot 1 ·ved in i • T e pla · t ·ff notified the - ✓ ·en an that it ust be e oved . 01 efusal, 1e plaintiff d m · d reconvey n v and os - • e s1011 . The court • V Ji.: fort e Jle- intiff, and i n · s deci ·on t t ed th tis , tr·ct·on va, a co1 ition s _ bseauent, t.nd ot a ere Je onal cove an ; th t such a restrictio11 is v lid, and , e ·lain ciff 1 1 c , ol :, ot er and i 1e sar.1e t ct i n ccord- -19- nnc e v,i tl t tu ory r egu the restric · on ~ro ld ubject to enforced . • • e co: c 1 · 1 ons , The only provisio11 und ir r1 · ch one rantee of lot i11 trac can enforce B restriction ag inst another purchaser of a lot in the srune rac • • prOVlf'lOn p e rs in the deed itself that the covenante1 • re 1 purou ce of a -eneral pla nd scheme, an • 1 for t1 e be efi t of 1e enti .. e ract, an enforcable by ot ers tl e ovenante • In the absence oft i~ provision clearly expressed • the deed, the 011ly r emed; of the grant e for -~ condition 1n ro <:en b mot er antee , • • _ 1e e;r an tor • • vell il- 1 C! al s - 1 e 1S l l,st -- ted • tl1e case of 'e .ral1 181 c, 1 . 7 - to - v:i 11:. er vs . • , , • u b ·v ·ded a .L r ac u 0 lan and sold one n One · rsh i een of e one 1 id.red nd t ir t 1 0 lots, \ i l re trio- t:lons 110 to use than for liver:' st bles , saloons , or tenen ents f o · irty ye rs; or oil vvell s for fifty yec r , n )o 1 ce 11 d fellings duri . '": t e next r1enty - ·ve ear ccor _ ·:n ) to spec. r· ed plans . arshall quitclaimed an, and all i terest he had in certain lot to he plain iff, a ~ 1 ter solcl the renain er oft e one hun- dred ru1cl t 1ir T t o cts, of 1 ic he defendan 0 1 1 ver 1 . e pl, i 0 t o cle r .i s .,i tle of restr · c ions 1hic ,l _ e- .. fen an u cote ed vere bi di 0 11 the pl .intiff . Ju ent v1 s 1V- en for the plai .J. • ff 011 the theory h t there \vas no e ui table er v · tu e, for there v as no o in·nt et te or serv · ud ment · oned. e de > d ust be specific . TI1e urd 1 3n and benefi of n11 '1:, re- • J. • • c · ~ ents of oi;me1 s • • • r1 L, 1 ,n s l 1 no r1v1 ~ • ot ot lot d . • n o e owne an r o, er · o co 1 , s . l d, • • r oven rtU1 : 1 e - r a r1n1en s r: e .. J - ~(". . it elf . • tl a the '"\ rov1 10 covenant n l ce of neral plan ~ d nc eme, before it is enforc ble b ot ers t n 1 ·he covonantee . 1 e 1 · 11 of 1 ·orl o · u • ca~ es, 1 _ opinion, the ac ju- die tad larv re ating to t11e enforce ent of restrictions in deeds 011 the use and s le o · 1 nd in California, may a sur::narized und , e .folloving in ear i ~s, to-ri : (1) A grantee cannot enfor a uil i g restrictions, unless e can sho i the deed tha i is i cco dance it a eneral sc em o improv an rut, and that it i Ct • • l • (2) The • lg to enforce con i ,ion stb eque • l one man ro • .J: osition, either i n l1e 1 • 01 · ho i A 1 o s e J. • • 1 , or 1r .. ·s heirs, • • or l u a s1gnee, ile covenan or the be efit of e ere t e equitr le e emai:,, ~ all haviyj .. • 1n eres en O" ce . (3) If • stif. tion f ,r buila.i . .. . a reaso i l C ,101 as ailed ed cond · • • tl1e ., e ·rable rtl •lOTIS, rr.a 11 L O e • • 1 l . r :r a 0 , q l J 10 a OVI .L. e e en ~ + ricti ,n r1ill e , O ore eel • l.J. , • V (4) Only the successors in interest in he --ig )1 1 ~ of entry fro! J1e original granter can enforce the con .i- ~ions , . Ot er purchasers of lots of t} e rune J , tor · 1 he m) tract annot enforce i'1 \ t otl er JU chase, for n, pr ·vi ~ exi~t~ .1..1 • .. l.1 r ) e e · us • e l e ✓ it el • 1 p 1 ce , ener 1 plan and sc11eme; e en- ~orcable b o· er s 1 n e cove o i ~i on subse uent cannot e 8"'1- forced, 11: less J he 6 ~ .. t ~ r t i ., o 1e o 1e lan • (7) ~, ' es 1 e declared 1 rhenever i os . • 1 ,: l ) • -21- · (8) The question often arises as J.o ,met er or 1ot he r t ·iction violate tl1e rule _ainst perpetl •. ie~, or e .. le prohib.ti10- restr i11t on liA i o11 . Su h r str · ctions i1n osed as condi t · ons subsequent, do not necessarily violate these rules, un less the 1 1a.t11re of the case is . ucr1. (9) Onl:l cove11antees can en orce the restrict i ons, unless the cov- 011ant uns ~it 1 he 1 nd . ~aneral application of the doctrine of Equit ble Re straint s on Land ay e ga t e Jd ro t recec i illt1 tratio11s and cita ions . The 10n off oc e U · · ted S i ·. Lo ivid i .e 1 , bee Al eles, · t1e f l lo ,in : A, , he o me· • 1 • ..L 1n u , S 01 11 al e, 8 (1 1 J. er en s . I n e o e an n OI a e e e C . lC e · rticul rl - .Y l ock of 1 lo s to di ;nar t 0 . , - . .. tee n , o uil ne r er ; . e u li ce 1· . , o· • no 1 ·1 • 1 , u e 1 , s C s, 0 rot to u ·1c u to ll n I C }'j P . :-! l"\ C O O + v. e :n P.n· t, 1 · ...., r.; J ...,b .., 0 • e _e ed .L uS C o n n , l e \ ol e andi u ol d, o tl, 'J A e i _~ noi _ t er e t oe er . 0 ar e w r el e ent rantees . E ac u en e ve .L • v . .,_ l .. v e n e h~ h e • 1 • I se- , y ber one , should violat e tl1e cov- 0 ' P l i n - . , V O ld 1 0 • t • 1 . ~ VO o · tne ovne_ 01 m ot , t 1 en. H 0 e, p- + 0 C .1.. , - • ·1 lJ , , lid l a e· 1en ... 0 . e o e- en o t u o 1 t e su1 ,.o di~\ cir n _ • • • • nfo:rcable onl · " • t 1 .oc r1 J J C l " l ·1 0 • ., .. 1ot pe ·'!1 • t of U :i • ..l. • • 0 1:r J rLoes e con Jl ,1 ~ me l - ' ~ . It reel 1des 1 of + l rup 110 s eitful v on • u , seek to place profit comfort , • • it fo V/110 e· ore .. c_ , 1n 0 0 11 ,_ , - L t creation of, and L A be • • ue:rs e IJ - J p e sur.., s I e JO · !1 est • tr 111 it oc iet~, , + . 1 -: I • o~ 1 , _at om '..J •. • . • ble t1 t L of . + houl le no 1 ( 1 J L, e n 1em e s o rnrn v 0 t11e character of tJ. ei · , ome • r roundin 5 s, preserve en 1ronmen • of such • s·i~1t ed _art of the v111en a pro 1se e v1r a 0 a con- sid.eratio11 • the • of t ti 1 lar place the site 1n 10n a as for t hei1~ h omes • .Ancie1Tt 1;rri ··,g;s 4 1d the letter of tl e law >"ive ,vay before e principle or tnis d.uct:rine, iJ.1 vie J, of he increasing con1p1exity· . 1 e- "'") e J or t l1e 1 v, b· roviding for the eans of just pplicat · on. e doctrine of Equ·t ble Re traints on 1 nd is based u 1 on ne- ces s .. on -" . enan .. o , 11 als as the,, V • n • 0 'bsolute doctrine, but . ., . ne . 1 n 1 1 t·vel. dependent on conditions,and may be properly termed the • oc 1 118 0 - , it ble Restra i 11ts on L ano_ • n my opi11ion, the cloctrine is one of e largement. :/ith 4 e apid i 1 1 ase o uo 1 ... • 10n, • easin{T size of our o- cal l a " um j 1 1 es", cor.1r1onl { ._ :reater sa..i.l'li t tion and or:;a.11iz tion t e , lue of 1 · s doctrine rt of t e i ble J ri s :n1de11ce of t is co 1tr • 1s para- moun ·, and the pplication of its principles should be strictl -23- enforcal in the discretion of those in whom is the province of its nforcement. "1'HE END." - 24- BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THESIS . 1- C ases in Equity Jurisprudence.- Jrunes Brr Ames . - . 2- Story ' s Equity Jurisprudence . - \t. E. Gr· _sby . 3- Y o ung Pomeroy ' s Equitable JuriQ rud,nce . - Voltunes 1 and 2. 4- Cases on future inter~sts.- Kale . 5- C oll ect i on of case 01 property,. - Ai ler . 6- Encyclopedia Britannica. . ; 7- C ases cited: A - Tulk vs . .0YJ1 ·, 2 Phill ch. 774. B- Van Ren selaer v • Re d, ~ 6 I .Y. . 8 . C - Schwoerer vs . Boyl to ~arlet Associ tion, 9: Mass . 28 . D - ~1itne· vs . lTnio11 R •• Co . , 1 Gra., 9. E- Lattimer 1·vermo~ e, 72 N.Y. 17 . F- ~vinifield vs . Henni , 21 . J . Equi t. 188 • .. G - Hamlen vs . Werner, 1~4 Mas~ . 397. H- Tal ln1adge vs . East iver Bank, 2 .Y. 105 . 1- Alvord vs . Fletc er, 1 '. •• up . 17. J - Page vs . Murr ~ , 46 ~ .J . · it 32 • . - K- I,cQuire vs . ria ey, '-"2 0 _ io 4 ., . 1- Trout vs • . acao , 54 , .J . quit 3 1 • . 1- 1Iaskell vs . ri ;ht, 23 •• quit 389 • .., N - B r onner vs . Jones , 2 ~ r 153., 0- Sayers vs . Co yer, 2:r 11. . . 80 - ' P- Beal v ~. .a a, 138 .. ass. 138. - , - 1ersten vs . erstenberg, 186 Cal. 344. R - American nitarian A s'n . vs. .i ot, • - Lan el vs • _ ru il 011, 34 tl. 3. • T- Zi pp vs. Barker, 5 .Y . Supp/ 6. U- angma1cl v • e d, l h9 ~as _Q • V- . qui ta le Life S SU an c.f£t)lD V • renn ·ass • I 2 - 9 . .Y. 784 • W- De Gray vs. Morunout Beach Club House , 0 1~ .J .F.quity 329. r- i cBride vs. Wree. an, 21 Pac . 678 . I 1 - Cal ifornia Cases Cited: 1- Les Angeles Inv. Co/ vs. Gary, 181 C 1/i O. 2- M iles vs . Clark, - Cal.Ape ls 39 . 3- Walker vs. Haslett, Cal . Appeals 39 _. 4- Strong vs. ~hatto, - C 1 . A. e ls 29 . 5- Bresee vs. Dunn, 178 Cal. 9 • • 6- Berry ru1 v • ITot 1 S voy, 160 Cal . ~9 . 7- Firth vs . _arovich, 160 Cal. 2 7 • . 8- Werner vs. Graham, 181 C al . 17 .• 9- Los Angeles Terrninal Lan~ C /vs • .1!u.ir, 13 Cal. 3 • 10- Quat an v • . Cr· y , 128 C al . 2 • 11- G t1ar t / n Trus Co/v • Garrot, _ C l .Ap eals, 152. - -

Asset Metadata

Creator Overholt, Elmer L. (author)

Core Title The doctrine of "equitable restraints in land."

Contributor Digitized in 2022 (provenance)

School School of Law

Degree Juris Doctor

Degree Conferral Date 1924

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112719550

Unique identifier UC112719550

Identifier Law J.D. '24 O96 (call number),etd-OverholtElmer-1924.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-OverholtElmer-1924

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Overholt, Elmer L.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230127-usctheses-microfilm-box6a (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses