For Your Data Orangish & Rockland Utilities, Inc. V. Philwold Estates, Inc. Example Brief
September 01, 2019
Edit
Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Philwold Estates, Inc. example brief summary
418 N.E.2d 1310 (1981)
CASE FACTS
A landowner's deed to a grantor contained a restrictive covenant that express the land's purpose to a hydroelectric plant. The landowner retained a part of the solid reason too a correct of agency onto the grantor's solid reason for hunting too fishing. The grantor conveyed his solid reason to the grantee, a utility company.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the appellate court's order, equally modified. The courtroom modified the social club to bar the promisee from bringing a time to come claim for damages.
Suggested police pull schoolhouse written report materials




Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
418 N.E.2d 1310 (1981)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff grantee brought an activity inward the supreme courtroom against accused promisee, seeking to extinguish a deed's restrictive covenant effectively rendering the grantee's solid reason useless. The supreme courtroom dismissed the claim. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court inward the Third Judicial Department (New York) affirmed. The grantee appealed.CASE FACTS
A landowner's deed to a grantor contained a restrictive covenant that express the land's purpose to a hydroelectric plant. The landowner retained a part of the solid reason too a correct of agency onto the grantor's solid reason for hunting too fishing. The grantor conveyed his solid reason to the grantee, a utility company.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom held that the covenant ran alongside the solid reason because the terms of the master conveyance indicated that that was the master parties' intent.
- The courtroom noted that the master deed applied to the grantor too his assigns, too that the landowner retained his correct of way, indicating an intent that the grantor's holding rest unspoiled.
- The covenant touched too concerned the land, equally it affected its value.
- Because of the city's condemnation, the solid reason was useless to the grantee.
- Extinguishment did non touching on the value of the promisee's hunting too angling rights.
- Equity, thence justified extinguishment of the restriction, N.Y. Real Prop. Acts Law § 1951.
- The promisee retained his correct of way.
- Because the promisee failed to offering proof of acquaint or time to come damages due to the extinguishment, he could non choose brought whatsoever time to come claims for damages.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the appellate court's order, equally modified. The courtroom modified the social club to bar the promisee from bringing a time to come claim for damages.
Suggested police pull schoolhouse written report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials