Klein v. Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth
Supreme Court of New Jersey
“Lots 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, with restrictive covenants the same as those covering lots 13 to 16, inclusive. “Lot 19 (being the balance of the lands involved in this suit) with restrictive covenants the same as those covering lots 13 to 16, inclusive, and an additional restriction against the erection of a stable, with an agreement on the part of the grantor to release the restriction against a stable after five years from the date of the deed, in case the grantee should…
Read the full summary
“Lots 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, with restrictive covenants the same as those covering lots 13 to 16, inclusive. “Lot 19 (being the balance of the lands involved in this suit) with restrictive covenants the same as those covering lots 13 to 16, inclusive, and an additional restriction against the erection of a stable, with an agreement on the part of the grantor to release the restriction against a stable after five years from the date of the deed, in case the grantee should sell the lot. The deed for this lot contains a provision which does not appear in any previous conveyance made by the…
1Per curiam
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Fielder.
For affirmance — The Ciiiee-Justice, Tren chard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbacpi, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskiric, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear¿ JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.
2Cited by14 opinions
- Osius v. BartonSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
- Osius v. BartonSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
- Weinstein v. SwartzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1949
- Levy v. Dundalk Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1940
- O'Malley v. Central Methodist ChurchArizona Supreme Court · 1948
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.