Coulter v. Seybold
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas
1Opinion of the Court
*253OPINION
By CROSSLAND, J: :
Plaintiffs in their petition claim that a restrictive covenant against the storage or sale of intoxicating liquor was contained in the deed to Clarence and Maude Seybold for Lot No. 24 of Home Acres Allotment, Palls Township, Muskingum County, Ohio, and also “in the deeds to other lots in said Allotment and was a part of the general restrictions for the use and benefit of the purchasers and owners thereof.” Defendants deny that such restrictive covenant “was a part of a general plan of restriction” for said use and benefit, and claim that defendants Seybold lacked…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1960
- Gatts v. E.G.T.G., GMBHOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1960