Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt
New York Supreme Court
PPEALS by the defendants, respectively, from judgments rendered at a special term, awarding a perpetual injunction in each of the above causes. The defendants in both actions were owners or lessees of certain lots in the city of Brooklyn.
Read the full summary
PPEALS by the defendants, respectively, from judgments rendered at a special term, awarding a perpetual injunction in each of the above causes. The defendants in both actions were owners or lessees of certain lots in the city of Brooklyn. These lots were conveyed by the Atlantic Dock Company to David F. Worcester, on the 15th of May, 1852, by a deed containing the following clause: “ And the said party of the second part for himself, his heirs a!nd assigns, doth hereby covenant with the said Atlantic Dock Company and their successors, that neither the said party of the second part, or his…
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinion was delivered by the judge at special term:
Gilbert, J.
The acceptance by Worcester of the conveyance containing the covenant in question, was equivalent to an express agreement on his part to perform the same, and this obligation affected the title of his grantees; “ qui sentit commodum sentiré debet et onus.” (2 Co. Lit. by Thomas, 187. 9 Paige, 659. 5 B. & G. 589.)
The question is whether there has been a breach of the duty thus created. That duty was “ inter alia” not to erect or permit upon the premises conveyed, any brewery, distillery; slaughter house, # other…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Torrey v. Bank of OrleansNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- Aikin v. . WassonNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
3Cited by8 opinions
- Midland Railway Co. v. FisherIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Sanitary District of Chicago v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1917
- Millikan v. HunterIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Gilford v. Babies' HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Carder v. HughettAppellate Court of Illinois · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.