Dixon v. Van Sweringen Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
Janie A. Dixon, plaintiff in error, purchased a lot in a highly restricted, exclusively residential district. Her predecessors in title had established these restrictions and placed them in their deeds, reciting “the herein enumerated restrictions, rights, reservations, limitations, agreements, covenants and conditions shall be deemed as covenants and not as conditions herein and shall run with the land and bind the grantee until the first day of May, 1999.” Such restrictions had been a matter of public record for several years, and, by accepting the deed containing the same, she is bound…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Halle v. NewboldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1888
- Hisey v. Eastminster Presbyterian ChurchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Hoopes v. City of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1916
3Cited by37 opinions
- Berjian v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Board of County Com'rs of Tulsa County v. MullinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
- Berger v. Van Sweringen Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1966
- Carranor Woods Property Owners' Ass'n v. DriscollOhio Court of Appeals · 1957
- Prestwick Landowners' Ass'n v. UnderhillOhio Court of Appeals · 1980
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.