Peabody Heights Co. v. Willson

Citations

• 82 Md. 186
• 32 A. 386
• 1895 Md. LEXIS 91

Syllabus

<p>Restrictive Covenants in an Agreement Concerning the Use of Land— Liability of Purchasers with Notice — Covenants Intended for the Common Benefit of Future Purchasers — Construction of Covenant Requiring the Designs of Proposed Buildings to be Approved by a Board of Directors.</p> <p>A purchaser who takes a conveyance of land with notice of a covenant or agreement respecting it, is bound by the terms of the covenant, even though it does not in the strict sense of the term run with the land.</p> <p>The owner of a tract of land adjoining Baltimore City leased thirty-six acres of it to a corporation for ninety-nine years renewable forever with a right of redemption. The lessor reserved to himself out of the tract a lot with a front of 400 feet, and he was also to be entitled to one’-fourth of the shares of the capital stock of the corporation. At the time of the execution of the lease an agreement was made under seal between the lessor and the lessee that the following bylaws or covenants should be as fully complied with as if embodied in the lease, viz.: “ 1. No land to be sold or leased without a pledge to build speedily, design of buildings to be approved by directors. 2. Buildings to be 20 feet back of building line, and fronts to be ornamented with shrubbery and flowers. 3. No nuisances, factories, lager beer saloons, &c., to be permitted; clause in deed to this effeet. 4. To regulate other proceedings. ” The company made sundry conveyances of parts of the land, in some of which there were no restrictive covenants at all, while in others the deeds were made subject to the by-laws of the company. After the death of the lessor, the purchaser of the 400-ft. lot reserved by him released the company from the restrictive by-laws, and the company also acquired the reversion in all of the land, thereby becoming the owner in fee. Upon a bill for a specific performance of a contract of sale against a purchaser of a lot who refused to comply with the contract because he o