Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-395-Character-of-agreement.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:07:34+00:00

Document:
138 Am. St. Rep. 370, 92 N. E. 37; Allen v. Barrett, 213 Mass. 36, 99 N. E. 575; Compton Hill Imp. Co. v. Strauch, 162 Mo. App. 76, 141 S. W. 1159; Maine v. Mul-liken, 176 Mich. 443, 142 N. W. 782; Spilling v. Hutcheson, 111 V'a. 179, 68 S. E. 250.
8. Flynn v. New York, W. & B. R. Co., 218 N. Y. 140, 112 N. E. 913.
9. Riverbank Improvement Co. v. Chad\vick, 228 Mass. 242, 117 N. E. 244.
9a. Doan v. Cleveland Short Line Ry. Co., 92 Ohio St. 461, 112 N. E. 505; Ward v. Cleveland Ry.
Co., 92 Ohio St. 471, 112 N. E. 507; U. S. v. Certain Lands, 112 Fed. 622; Wharton v. United States, 153 Fed. 876.
10. Havwood v. Brunswick Permanent Benefit Building Soc. 8 J. B. Div. 403; Austerberry v. Corporation of Oldham, 29 Ch. Div. 750; London & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Gomm, 20 Ch. Div. 562. See De Gray y. Monmouth Beach Club House Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 329. That only a restrictive agreement will thus be enforced, see also Miller v. Clary, 210 N. Y. 127, 103 X. E. 1114 (semble).
11. Tulk v. Moxhay, 2 Phillips, 774. Wood v. Cooper (1894) 3 Ch. 671; Herrick v. Marshall, 66 Me. 435; Peck v. Conway, 119 Mass. 546; Lad:l v. City of Boston, 151 Mass. 585, 21 Am. St. Rep. 481, 24 N. E. 858; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 X. Y. 400; Hennen v. De-veny, 71 W. Va. 629, L. R. A. 1917A, 524, 77 S. E. 142.
12. Mcmanon v. Williams, 79 Ala. 288; Collins Mfg. Co.v. Marcy. 25 Conn. 242; Watrous v. Allen, 57 Mich. 362, 58 Am. Rep. 363, 24 N. W. 104; Post v. Weil, 115 N. Y. 361; 5 L R. A. 422. 12 Am. St. Rep. 809, 22 N. E. 145; Stines v. Dorman, 25 Ohio St. 580.
13. German v. Chapman, 7 Ch. Div. 271; Parker v. .Nightingale, 6 Allen (.Mass.) 341, 83 Am. Dec. 632. Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y. 140.
14. Manners v. Johnson, 1 Ch. Div. 673; Coles v. Sims, 5 De Gex. M. & G. 1; Linzee v. Mixer, 101 Mass. 512; Sanborn v. Rice, 129 Mass. 387; Ogontz Land & Improvement Co. v. Johnson, 168 Pa. St. 178, 31 Atl. 1008; Brandenburg v. Lager, 272 111. 622. 112 N. E. 321.
15. Bowes v. Law, L. R. 9 Eq. 636. Page v. Murray, 46 N. J. Eq. 325, 19 Atl. 11; Blakemore v. Stanley, 159 Mass. 6, 33 N. E. 689.
16. Keening v. Ayling, 126 Mass. 404; Landell v. Hamilton, 177 Pa. St. 23, 35 Atl. 242; Clark v. Martin, 49 Pa. St. 289.
17. Flege v. Covington & C. Elevated R. & Transfer & Bridge Co., 122 Ky. 348, 121 Am. St. Rep. 463, 91 S. W. 738; Bailey v. Aga-wam Nat Bank, 190 Mass. 20. 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 98, 112 Am. St. Rep. 296, 5 A. & E. Ann. Cas.
553, 76 N. E. 449; Childs v. Boston & M. R., 213 Mass. 91, 99 N. E. 957. Carson v. Percy, 57 Miss. 97; Burbank v. Pillsbury, 48 N. H. 475; Gould v. Partridge, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 40, 64 N. Y. Supp. 870 (semble); Hinchman v. Consol. Arizona Smelting Co., 198 Fed. 407 (semble). As adverse to the enforcement of such an affirmative covenant, see Miller v. Clary, 210 N. Y. 127, 103 N. E. 1114.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.