The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-03-17
A PROHIBITION RAILROAD NAN
UPHELD BY THE COURTS.

The most powerful temperance lecturer
| abroad today is the head of a great bust
ness enterprise. Hardly without excep-
| ton the great business interests make il
2 rule not 10 employ men who drink.
This is particularly true OF railroads
| where a clear eye and a steady hand are
necessary for the protection of life ana
| the safety OF commerce.
The Louisiana Supreme court has re-
| Gently rendered a decision upholdiEg 4
| contract in the interest of temperance
made by the most practical temperance
| man in America. Some years ago-about
| 1890-Mr. ]. B. Watkins built a railroad
| one hundred miles long, from Lake
Charles, La, to Alexandria, La, named
the St. Louis, Watkins and Gulf railroad.
| Upon putting town lots for sale on the
line of his railroad, Mr.. Watkins would
not make a sale to any purchaser who
would not accept a deed containing the
following clause:
That the said purchaser, his heirs Or
assigns, shall rot at any time manufac-
ture or sell intoxicating liquors upon said
premises, except for medicinal, mechani-
cal or scientific purposes; and should this
condition be broken, this deed shall in
mediately and iPso facto be and become
null and void and the title shall immedi-
ately and ipso factO revert to and vest in
said vendor, and said vendor shall not be
under any obligations to return any part
of the purchase price"
Thirteen years passed without any vio-
lation Of this anti-liQuor clause, and it
was taken to the courts to enforce. It
was denied that such a clause could
stand, for it gave to an Individual con-
troll for all time Of the policy of a COM
munity as to the sale or manufacture of
after stating that the vendee had vio-
lated the anti-liquor clause, said:
THAT "a condition in a deed of land
that intoxicating liquors shall never be
manufactured or sold thereon, and that If
this condition be broken the deed shall
become void is not repugnant to the es-
tate granted or unlawful In other
States it mas been uniformly held that
such a condition is not repugnant to the
estate granted nor unlawful and is bind
ing on the vendee. The civil code de-
clares that agreements legally entered
into nave the effect of law between the
parties. 1t is also provided that parties
may enter into all contracts which are
not unlawful and prohibited. If the nom
liquor clause is considered in the light
of a servithde on the land decided. there
ic pofhinr UNDO, 49, +;4J1 g z-.4. =
the code which prohibits the burdening OF
realty with such q servitude. On the
contrary, by intendment, such a servi-
tude would be lawful
In considering the question as to wheth-
er or not the land reverted to the vendor
without the necessity OF a suit for disco
luton Of the sale the court held that
upon violation of the condition bv ex-
press stipulation in the deed. it became |
ipso facto null and void and the property !
reverted to and vested in the vendor
without obligation on his part to return
the price. The condition haing been VIC
lated by the vendee, the title of the
land vested in the vendor without further
formality. The vendor could sue directly
for the land, as he did, and a suit to dis
solve the sale was unnecessary. If il
were incumbent upon the vendor to sue
first for a dissolution of the sale, it would
have been obligatory on him to return
the purchase price, so that the parties
would be placed In the identical position
they occupied before the SALE Under
an agreement he would be forced tc
return the purchase price, notwithstand
an express stipulation in his favor
to the contrary. In order to enforce MS
claim on the property he would by law
be compelled to forfeit his right under
the deed to withhold the purchase price
from the vendor If the latter violated mis-
Defendant makes the further
point that if the condition is held binding
late the liquor raffic In the town OF
.berlin, in violation OF the constitutional
provisions of the State. To our minds no
results would flow if such a condi-
lion is held of binding and legal effect,
nor would defendant be affected in his
constitutional rights"
Some men do not hesitate to break a
promise because it is SO easy to make
another.