Court Opinion

ID: 3298853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:15:47.150219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:13.090368
License: Public Domain

I concur in the judgment. What the plaintiff's rights would have been if the deed had contained no provision limiting the grantee's right to take rock is a question not involved in this case, and I express no opinion upon it. It is enough to say that the deed under which the defendants hold did restrict the right of the grantee and its successors in interest to do certain acts destructive of the substance of the estate, and that this estate might, on breach of a condition subsequent, revert to the grantor. Such restrictions may lawfully be annexed to the conveyance of an interest less than an unqualified fee, and will be enforced at the suit of the holder of the future estate.(Blake v. Peters, 1 DeG. J.  S. 345.)
Henshaw, J., Angellotti, J., Shaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.