Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

PANCHO REALTY COMPANY, INC., appellant, v. HOBOKEN LAND AND IMPROVEMENTCOMPANY et al., respondents.

1. The restrictive covenant against the sale of liquor contained in the defendant company's deed to complainant's predecessor in title, and which defendant caused to be included in its subsequent deeds for all other lots that it conveyed in the block in question, was to prevent business competition which might injuriously affect the benefit which the defendant proposed to retain for the remaining property in the block on which a hostelry was operated under lease from the defendant. Held, the covenant is binding and enforceable as against complainant's property.

2. To charge the defendant company with acquiescence in a violation of the restrictive covenant in question, which violation was of short duration, it must appear that the defendant had notice thereof and thereafter acquiesced in the violation. An immaterial violation which does not disclose an intention to abandon the restriction, cannot avail the complainant.

3. The general character of the buildings in the neighborhood of the block where complainant's property is located, and the business there conducted, has remained practically unchanged for 50 years. Complainant is not entitled to relief on the ground that the character of the neighborhood has so changed as to defeat the purpose of the liquor restriction in question.

4. The fact that there has been a falling off in business in the neighborhood of complainant's property due to the discontinuance of the use of neighboring docks and piers by steamship companies, does not present a valid reason why restrictive covenants of the type here involved should be voided. Moreover, the business change started more than twenty years ago, and presumably complainant was aware of its results when it purchased its property.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Fielder in the Court of Chancery.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PANCHO REALTY, c., v. HOBOKEN LAND, c., CO
(Apr 23, 1942)