Legal Opinion
Sweet v. Hollearn
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 12, 1932PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
If restrictive covenants in a deed are to be binding upon the remaining lands of the grantor there must be a mutual covenant in the deed, a general plan showing uniformity of restrictions (Bristol v. Woodward, 251 N. Y. 255), or oral promises contemporaneously made by the grantor to the grantee of which any subsequent purchaser has either actual or constructive notice. (Bimson v. Bultman, 3 App. Div. 198; Turner v. Howard, 10 id. 555.) Clear intent to establish restrictions must be evidenced in one of these three ways.
The covenant in defendant’s deed is not made in terms reciprocal. Indeed,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bristol v. WoodwardNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Ben-Oliel v. Press Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Minister, Elders & Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Madison Avenue Building Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Bimson v. BultmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Gallon v. HussarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
3Cited by7 opinions
- Holliday v. SpharCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
- Van Schaick v. Trustees of Union CollegeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Foro v. DoetschAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- Ginsberg v. Yeshiva of Far RockawayNew York Supreme Court · 1973
- Marsh v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.