Pavkovich v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles L. Allison, Davis & Rush, and A. W. Hutton, for Appellant. Bicknell, Gibson & Trask, and Edward E. Bacon, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the Court
Upon a careful reconsideration of this case after rehearing ordered, we find no occasion to modify our original opinion. Nor do we deem it necessary to undertake a discussion of the proper construction of our code provisions relating to covenants running with the land. Our conclusions are not rested upon those provisions, and they contain nothing inconsistent with what we have decided. Conceding that there is here no covenant running with the land in a strict legal sense, we still hold that the plaintiff, as the owner of a contingent future estate in the land, is entitled in equity to enjoin…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Lien v. Northwestern Engineering Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1949
- Johnston v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Taylor v. McCowenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Kerr Land & Timber Co. v. EmmersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Rhoda v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.