Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1915-07-02
Another Decision In The Wash
ingtOn Grove Cases.

Judge Peter has filed an opinion in the
case of Robert H. Walker and Myra Estelle
Walker VS.. The Washington Grove Associ-
alton of the District of Columbia.
The object of the suit was to compel the
defendant to convey to the plaintiffs a
parcel of land. described in the proceed
ines. either by lease for the term of 80
years or deed in fee simple
The Court says: -
ut is apparent the certificate under
which the plaintiffs claim was issued to
them by the defendant upon the erroneous
assumption that il could restrict the trans
fer of the shares represented by the certifi-
cate to persons approved by its board of
L -stees, and acting upon this assumption
it has sought to limit the tenure of the lot
described in the certificate to the plaintiffs
and the transferees of their stock. Thus
it is seen the defendant intended the
plaintiffs should have more than a license
and more than term, for they were not
only to have the right to use the lot so
long as they continued to hold their stock,
but they were also to have the right TO
sell it, provided they, at the same time.
sold their stock to the same person, the
purchaser taking the same title to both
stock and lot as the plaintiffs had. By
this method the defendant has attempted
to create an estate in land appendant TO
five shares of its stock. which estate.
though transmissible through the plaintiffs
from purchaser To purchaser in perpetuity.
is without heritable quality. and is evil
denced only by an irregular stock certifi-
cate that can be- recorded nowhere except
in the stock books of the defendant II is
sufficient 10 say that such a title is I'M
known to the law
"A vendor of the use of land, coupled with
the power of alienation, cannot retain the
fee for the single purpose Of restricting
the alienation. To permit such thing
would be clearly against public policy.
Again. Section l. of Article "a of the Code,
expressly provides that no estate Of inner
lance or freehold or limitation of use. or
any estate above seven years. shall pass
or take effect unless the deed conveying
the same shall be executed. acknowledged
and recorded as therein provided. While
the second certificate issued by the defen-
dant is executed and acknowledged as
deeds are. yet II is not deed in the sense
of its being conveyance Of land. and it
cannot. therefore, be recorded under the
statutes relating to conveyances.
AFTER viewing this transaction from every
possible angle have reached the conclu-
sion that the fee and the use in the land
in controversy must be vested in the plain
tiffs, and will pass decree requiring the
defendant to convey the fee to them by a
deed containing covenants upon the part
Of the plaintiffs, running with the land,
that no place Of business shall be opened
or continued on the premises that no
structure. except porches. shall be erected
on said lot within twenty feet of the front
line thereof; that no porch shall be erected
on said lot within twelve feet Of said line .
and that all residences maintained on said
lot shall be provided with chimneys con-
structed Of brick or other suitable material
THE first Of these covenants is based
upon the certificates held by the plaintiffs,
and the others upon Section 20 Of the new
| hy-Iaws"