This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 Excerpt: ...that the vendor should have entered into restrictive covenants with the purchasers, or that the purchasers should have entered into restrictive covenants with each other. It is not material that the lots are not all sold at the same time. The building restrictions need not 'be the same as regards all the lots, and the ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 Excerpt: ...that the vendor should have entered into restrictive covenants with the purchasers, or that the purchasers should have entered into restrictive covenants with each other. It is not material that the lots are not all sold at the same time. The building restrictions need not 'be the same as regards all the lots, and the owner of a lot which, according to the scheme, is not subject to any restrictions, may enforce the restrictions against other lots. Western v. Maedermott, 2 Ch. 72 Benals v. Cowlishaw, 9 Ch. D. 125; 11 Ch. D. 866; Nicoll v. Fenning, 19 Ch. D. 258; Spicer v. Martin, 14 App. C. 12 Nottingham Patent Brick & Tile Co. v. Butler, 15 Q. B. D, 261; 16 Q. B. D. 778; Collins v. Castle, 36 Ch. D. 243 Mackenzie v. Childers, 43 Ch. D. 265; Davis v. Corporation of Leicester, 1894, 2 Ch. 208. The principle extends to a building let out to tenants as Building let residential flats. Hudson v. Cripps, 1896, 1 Ch. 265. It does not apply when a definite scheme cannot be made out or the purchasers do not buy on the faith of the scheme. Tucker v. Vowles, 1893, 1 Ch. 195; Sheppard v. Gilmore, 57 L. T. 615; Graham v. Craig, 1902, 1 Ir. 264; see Everett v. Bemington, 1892, 3 Ch. 148. If the land has been used in a manner inconsistent with the Building........ scheme may restrictive covenants, so that it has become impossible to have become maintain the building scheme, the restrictive covenants will ""P0881 e-not be enforced. Duke of Bedford v. British Museum Trustees, 2 M. & K. 552; Peek v. Matthews, 3 Eq. 515; Western v. Mae-dermott, 2 Ch. 72; Knight v. Simmonds, 1896, 2 Ch. 294; see Craig v. Greer, 1899, 1 Ir. 258. A particular person may by his conduct lose his right to Particular insist on a restrictive covenant. foright The right is not lost by...
Read Less
