Imágenes de páginas

It is inconvenient to

fancy or caprice of any owner. the public weal that such a latitude should be given. There can be no harm in allowing the fullest latitude to men in binding themselves and their personal representatives to answer in damages for breach of their obligations; but great detriment would arise, and much confusion of rights, if parties were allowed to invent new modes of holding and enjoying property, and to impress upon their lands and tenements a peculiar character, which should follow them into all hands, however remote." (g) All covenants nevertheless, entered into by vendors or purchasers of lands, providing that the land sold or purchased by them shall be used for the purpose of pleasure and the personal accommodation and convenience of the inhabitants of certain houses, and shall not be inclosed or built upon, or injured by the introduction of manufactories, or the carrying on of particular trades crafts, and professions, or the conveyance of heavy goods across it, may in general be enforced by injunction against all subsequent purchasers who buy and take possession of the property with notice of the covenant. (h)

Where the owner of an estate built several houses upon it, and sold some of them, subject to a covenant on the part of the purchaser, that he would keep the area, in front of the houses inclosed with open iron palisades, and would not suffer a single shop window to be put up in them, or carry on any trade business, or calling whatever in them, or upon the adjoining premises, or suffer the same to be used to the annoyance, nuisance, or injury of any of the houses on the estate, it was held that all subsequent assignees and purchasers of the houses who took them with notice

(g) Keppel . Bailey, 2 Myl. & K. 538.

(h) Whatman v. Gibson, 9 Sim. 206.

of the covenants were bound by them; and an injunction was granted to prevent one of the houses being used as a girl's school; and it was further held that the covenantee had not waived the benefit of the covenant, although he had permitted other houses. held under a like covenant, to be used as schools; (2) for it does not follow that, because a plaintiff has permitted one infringement of a covenant, he is bound to permit another. (k) But, where a covenant was entered into by purchasers of land for building, that the buildings should all be erected on a general plan, and the covenantee relaxed the covenant, and allowed important deviations from the plan in favor of some of the covenantors, and others, who had not been liscensed to deviate, did deviate, and the covenantor did not interfere with promptitude, but allowed the parties to expend a considerable sum of money, and then applied, by injunction, to prevent them from infringing their covenant, the court refused to interfere, saying, that it was a proper case for compensation in damages, and not for an injunction. (1) And the same principle was applied, where the defendant had executed the deed after the breach by the other covenanting parties had been committed, and where the covenant was also a covenant between all the purchasers inter se. (m) An injunction is not, in general, granted where the plaintiff has acquiesced in the performance of the act he seeks to prohibit. If, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances, he has lain by

(i) Kemp v. Sober, 1 Sim. N. S. 520; 20 L. J., Ch. 602.

(k) Lloyd v. London, Chatham & Dover Ry. Co., 34 L. J., Ch. 401; 2 De G., J. & S. 568. Western v. McDermot, L. R., 2 Ch. 72; 35 L. J., Ch. 190; 36 Id. 76.

(1) Roper v. Williams, Turn. & Russ. 22. As to the parties entitled to the benefit of these covenants, see Schreiber v. Creed, 10 Sim. 9.

(m) Peek v. Matthews, L. R., 3 Eq.


and made no complaint or objection, when he ought, in justice, to have warned the wrongdoer, the court will refuse its assistance. But acquiescence in a breach of covenant not attended with substantial damage will not bar the right to restrain a subsequent breach so attended. (n)

505. Injunctions to compel parties to abide by their own statements and representations.-Where the defendant, being possessed of certain leasehold estates, sub-let a part of the demised premises to the plaintiff on the strength of a representation that he, the defendant, was prevented by the covenants of the lease from building so as to obstruct the sea view, and thereby received an increased price for his land, and stood by whilst the sub-lessee erected houses on the property sub-let, which were valuable by reason of the sea view, and would be almost worthless without it, the court interfered by injunction to prevent the defendant from building so as to obstruct the sea view from the houses so erected. (0)1


506. Foreign contracts.-A foreign contract, as a general rule, will not be enforced, unless it is valid

(n) Western v. McDermot, L. R., 2 Ch. 72; 35 L. J.. Ch. 190; 36 Id. 76.

(0) Piggott v. Stratton, 29 L. J., Ch. I.

See Seymour v. Delancey, 6 Johns. Ch. 225; Acker v. Phoenix, 4 Paige, 305; Nellis v. Clark, 20 Wend. 24; Miller v. Chetwood, I Green. Ch. 199; gross misrepresentation, Best v. Stow, 2 Sandf. Ch. 298; Schmidt v. Livingston, 3 Edw. Ch. 213; Rodman v. Zilley, Saxton, 320; Brealey v. Collins, Younge, 317; Peck v. Hoyt, 39 Conn.; Hubbell v. Schoening, 49 N. Y. 326; Lawrence v. Dorsey, 4 Harr. & McH. 205; Cooper v. Pena, 21 Cal. 404; Whitefield v. McLeod, 2 Bay, 380; Stewart v. The State, 2 Har. & G. 114; Knobb v. Lindsay, 5 Hamm. 472; King v. Bardeau, 6 Johns. 38; Judson v. Wass, 11 Id. 525; 3 Cranch, 270; 2 Bay, 11; Cannon v. Mitchell, 2 Desaus, 320; Wright v. Dekline, Pet. C. C. 199, Rankin v. Matthews, 7 Ired. L. 286; Sheldon v. Capron, 3 R. I. 171;

both by the law of the country in which it was made, and by the law of the country in which it is sought to be enforced. (p)

(p) 2 Spence's Eq. Jur. 13, 14. Hope v. Hope, 8 De G. M. & G. 731.

Perkins v. Wright, 3 Harr. & McH. 324; King v. Hamilton, 4 Pet. 311; Waters v. Howard, 1 Md. Ch. Dec. 112; 8 Gill, 262; Howard v. Ellis, 4 Sandf. 369.



« AnteriorContinuar »