The original owner of the subdivision sold the first set of plots with restrictions against commercial development. Although other plots were later sold without the commercial development restriction, the owners of these plots were held to the restriction because there was a implied negative easement at the time those lots were sold. The defendant had constructive notice of the negative easement because the recorded deeds to other lots in the subdivision contained the restriction. This was the first case that found that covenants are enforceable as equitable servitudes against subsequent purchasers with notice. It is worth noting that England did not have an effective system of public records of land titles until 1925.
Negative easements are harder to discover by inspection.
Prior to the date of that assignment, Burris personally checked the records in the office of the register of deed and, following the date of the assignment to him, Burris secured an abstract of title to the real estate in question. Neither his personal inspection nor the abstract of title reflected the prior assignment to Tours. Burris had won in the district court, lost in the Court of Appeals, and was appealing to the state Supreme Court, which found that Owens' assignment would have been sufficient if Burris had had actual knowledge of the transfer, but was not sufficient to give him constructive knowledge, and so reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgement of the district court. While this seems just, it raises the obvious practical problem of proving what the second purchaser did or did not know. For a more extensive discussion, see Duckminier and Krier, Property , pp.