Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Covenant-for-right-to-convey-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:38:38+00:00

Document:
O'connor v. Enos, 56 Wash. 448, 105 Pac. 1039.
26. Tuskegee Land & Security Co. v. Birmingham Realty Co., 161 Ala. 542, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 992, 49 So. 378; Forster v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577, 18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976; Evans v. Taylor, 177 Pa. 286, 69 L. R. A. 790, 35 Atl. 635.
27. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 76.
28. Watts v. Welman, 2 N. H. 458.
29. Freeman v. Foster, 55 Me. 508; Drury v. Holden, 121 111. 130, 13 N. E. 547; Johnson v. Nichols, 105 Iowa, 122; Walther v. Briggs, 69 Minn. 98; Jackson v. Hoffman, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 271; Brown v. South Boston Sav. Bank, 148 Mass. 300, 19 N. E. 382.
30. Frost v. Angier, 127 Mass. 212; Patten v. Fitz, 138 Mass. 456; Holmes v. Danforth, 83 Me. 139, 21 Atl. 845; City of Cincinnati v. Brachman, 35 Ohio St. 289.
31. Pettee v. Hawes, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 323.
32. Ante, this section, note 25.
33. Mann v. Montgomery, 6 Cal. App. 646, 92 Pac. 875; Hald-ane v. Sweet, 55 Mich. 196, 20 N. W. 902; Pease v. Christ, 31 N. Y. 141. See Musial v. Kud-lik, 87 Conn. 164, 87 Atl. 551. And compare Simons v. Diamond Match Co., 159 Mich. 241, 123 N.
34. Fitzer v. Fitzer, 29 Ind. 468; Blood v. Wilkins, 43 Iowa 565; Gill v. Ferrin, 71 N. H. 421, 52 Atl. 558. Contra, Pierse t. Bronnenberg, 40 Ind. App. 662, 81 N. E. 739; 82 N. E. 126.
35. Watts v. Welman, 2 N. H. 458; Reid v. Sycks, 27 Ohio St. 285. And see post, this section, note 42.
The cases are generally to the effect that extraneous evidence is not admissible at law to show an agreement that a certain incumbrance was not to in116 N. Y. 501, 15 Am. St. Rep. 421, 22 N. E. 1087; Ake v. Mason, 101 Pa. 17; Trice v. Kayton, 84 Va. 217, 10 Am. St. Rep. 836, 4 S. E. 377. So in the case of a public levee, Ireton v. Thomas, 84 Kan. 70, 113 Pac. 306. But that notice of the highway has no such effect, see Copeland v. Mcadory, 100 Ala. 553, 13 So. 545; Hubbard v. Norton, 10 Conn. 423; De Long v. Spring Lake Beach Improvement Co., 72 N. J. L. 125 59 Atl. 1034. And see ante, this section, notes 20, 21.
37. Janes v. Jenkins, 34 Md. 1; Memmert v. Mckeen, 112 Pa. St. 315, 4 Atl. 542; Kutz v. Mccune, 22 Wis. 628, 99 Am. Dec. 85.
32 S. E. 114; Newmyer v. Roush, 21 Idaho, 106 Ann. Cas. 1913D, 433, 120 Pac. 464; Beach v. Miller, 51 111. 206, 2 Am. Rep. 290; Burk v. Hill, 48 Ind. 52, 17 Am. Rep. 731; Yancey v. Tatlock, 93 Iowa, 386, 61 N. W. 997; Helton v. Asher, 135 Ky. 751, 123 S. W. 285; Edwards v. Clark, 83 Mich. 246, 10 L. R. A. 659, 47 N. W. 112; Kellogg v. Malin, 50 Mo. 496, 11 Am. Rep. 426; Burr v. Lamaster, 30 Neb. 688, 9 L. R. A. 637, 27 Am. St. Rep. 428, 46 N. W. 1015; Demars v. Koehler, 62 N. J. L. 203, 72 Am. St. Rep. 642, 41 Atl. 720; Huyck v. Andrews, 113 N. Y. 81, 3 L. R. A. 789, 10 Am. St. Rep. 432, 20 N. E. 581; Long v. Moler, 5 Ohio St. 272; Corbett v. Wrenn, 25 Ore. 305, 3.5 Pac. 658; Funk v. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 112, 14 Am. Dec. 617; Grice v. Scarborough, 2 Speers (S. C.) 649, 42 Am. Dec. 391. Brown v.
Butler v. Gale, 27 Vt. 739; O'connor v. Enos, 56 Wash. 448, 105 Pac. 1039. In Indiana such evidence has, however, been admitted. Allen v. Lee, 1 Ind. 58, 48 Am. Dec. 352; Pitman v. Conner, 27 Ind. 337. So in Hlinois. Sidders v. Riley, 22 111. 109; and Idaho, Urich v. Mcpherson, 27 Idaho 319, 149 Pac. 295.
40. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 88, p. 112; Haire v. Baker, 5 N. Y. 357; Van Wagner v. Van Nostrand, 19 Iowa, 427.
41. Taylor v. Gilman, 25 VI. 411; Sanders v. Wagner, 32 N. J. Eq. 506.

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. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.