Johnson v. State ex rel. Highway Division

The majority opinion concludes that the covenant in issue does not run with land and that therefore the plaintiffs must prevail. The basis for this conclusion is that the defendant State Highway Division (State) did not, as a result of the covenant, benefit in the use of the land (right-of-way) acquired by it. I cannot agree.

It is undisputed that the State in 1943 paid plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest $2,940 which included payment for

"* * * the cost of moving and reestablishing the residence located on the above described larger tract * * * 99

From the above language it would appear that…