Legal Opinion

McKeen v. Boothby

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided October 28, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPattangall, C. J.

Exceptions. Assumpsit. Money had and received. Verdict directed for defendant.

Defendant, a real estate agent residing in this state, offered for sale certain próperty in Portland, belonging to one Bishop, a resident of Canada, and plaintiff entered into an agreement in writing to purchase the same for $3,500, making a cash payment of $100. The agreement recited that the property was free of incumbrance.

An examination of the records disclosed the fact that in the deed to Bishop, the following restrictions appeared: “No house or other buildings shall be built on said lots within ten years of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Batley v. FoerdererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
  2. Bogart v. Crosby & Van HarenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Kirkpatrick v. StainerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
  4. Whelan v. RossiterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
  5. Fowle v. . KerchnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Central Maine Restaurant Supply v. Omni Hotels Management Corp.District Court, D. Maine · 1987
  2. Pelletier v. DwyerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975
  3. Spickler v. Key Bank of Southern MaineSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992
  4. Metzler v. IaconeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
  5. Ketch v. SmithSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API