Gibson v. Holden
Citations
- 115 Ill. 199
- 3 N.E. 282
Syllabus
<p>1. Party WAliE—agreement to pay half the cost—whether a covenant running with the land. A and B, the owners of adjoining lots, made a written agreement that A, in the erection of a building on his lot, might place one-half of the wall upon the lot of B, suitable for a party wall, which should continue such forever, to be kept, maintained, repaired and rebuilt at the equal joint expense of both. The agreement also provided that A should, in the first place, build and pay for the wall, and that before B should use the same, or any part thereof, he should pay A the cost of one-half of the wall, and that the provisions of the agreement should be taken as covenants running with the land, and binding upon the executors, heirs, devisees and assigns of the parties, and all persons having, at any time, any interest or estate in said lots: Held, that the agreement of B to pay A one-half of the cost of the wall was not a covenant running with the lot of A, but was personal to A, and that he, and not his assignee, was entitled to receive the sum due from B for his part of the cost, and that the wall, when completed, became the property of each, although A had the right to retain possession of the whole as a security for the payment of the sum due him.</p> <p>2. Land covered by a party wall remains the several property of the owner of each half, but the title of each owner is qualified by the easement to which the other is entitled, of supporting his building by means of the half of the wall belonging to the other; and this is all that either can convey.</p> <p>3. Covenant—running with the land. Where a covenant is not of such a nature that the law permits it to be attached to the estate as a covenant running with the land, it can not be made such by agreement of the parties.</p> <p>4. Whether a covenant will or will not run with the land, does not so much depend on whether it is to be performed on the land itself, as on whether it tends, directly or necessarily, to enhance i
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “To benefit [the party] as landowner, [the covenant] must, in some way, affect the value or the use of the land.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit UnionOregon Supreme Court· 1921-10-19· cited 52×
- Flying Diamond Oil Corp. v. Newton Sheep Co.Utah Supreme Court· 1989-05-25· cited 47×
- Purvis v. ShumanIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-04-20· cited 25×
- City of Birmingham v. GrahamSupreme Court of Alabama· 1918-06-27· cited 20×
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Illinois Central RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-10-24· cited 16×
- Natural Products Co. v. Dolese & Shepard Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1923-06-20· cited 16×
- Southworth v. PerringSupreme Court of Kansas· 1905-07-07· cited 16×
- Com'rs of Hwys. of Towns of Annawan v. United StatesN.D. Illinois· 1979-02-23· cited 14×
- Mickel v. YorkIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-10-24· cited 12×
- Johnson v. State ex rel. Highway DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1976-11-29· cited 11×
- Normille v. GillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1893-06-24· cited 8×
- Adams v. NobleMichigan Supreme Court· 1899-05-05· cited 8×
- McChesney v. DavisAppellate Court of Illinois· 1900-01-04· cited 6×
- Behrens v. HoxieAppellate Court of Illinois· 1887-11-18· cited 3×
- Hill v. City of HuronSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1914-02-18· cited 2×
- Nelson v. McEwenAppellate Court of Illinois· 1889-12-02· cited 2×
- Atwood v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1923-05-17· cited 2×
- Keogh v. PeckAppellate Court of Illinois· 1931-01-26· cited 2×
- Schram v. CoyneSixth Circuit· 1942-04-15· cited 1×
- Barry v. Chicago, Indianapolis & St. Louis Short Line Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1910-05-28· cited 1×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Maine v. CumstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1867-11-15· cited 40×
- Bloch v. IshamIndiana Supreme Court· 1867-05-15· cited 23×
- Roche v. UllmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1882-05-12· cited 20×
- Glenn v. CanbyCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1866-03-02· cited 18×
- Joy v. Boston Penny Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1874-04-04· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.