Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch
1877 N.Y. LEXIS 635, 70 N.Y. 440 (1877)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant regarding land use may be enforced in equity against a subsequent purchaser who takes the property with notice of the covenant, even if the covenant does not meet the technical legal requirements to run with the land, such as privity of estate.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs and Mr. Beers, who owned adjacent parcels of land in New York City, entered into a mutual agreement containing covenants to regulate the use of their respective properties.
- The agreement's stated purpose was to reserve the lots for first-class dwellings and to exclude all trades, businesses, and other structures that would diminish their value as private residences.
- The covenants were intended to be perpetual and binding on the parties' heirs and assigns.
- Beers subsequently sold his parcel of land.
- After a series of conveyances, the defendant Lynch acquired title to the property formerly owned by Beers.
- Lynch's deed explicitly stated that the conveyance was subject to the terms of the original agreement between the plaintiffs and Beers.
- The other defendants, Yates and Blaisdells, as tenants of Lynch, began operating businesses on the property in violation of the covenant.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued the defendants in a trial court seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant, likely through an injunction.
- The trial court judge found for the defendants, denying relief to the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the New York Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a restrictive covenant, created by adjacent landowners without privity of estate, bind a subsequent purchaser who takes title with notice of the covenant, allowing for its enforcement in a court of equity?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, J.
Yes. A restrictive covenant binds a subsequent purchaser with notice, and a court of equity will enforce it. The agreement created a negative easement, which is a servitude that attaches to the land. The critical factor for enforcing such an easement against a subsequent purchaser is not whether the covenant runs with the land at law, but whether the purchaser took title with notice of the restriction. Here, each successive grantee, including the defendant Lynch, had notice of the covenant and, in fact, took their title expressly subject to it. An owner can subject their land to a servitude and transmit it to others who are then charged with that same servitude. It would be unconscionable and inequitable to permit a grantee to be absolved from such a covenant for the technical reason that it did not run with the land at law, especially when the absence of a legal remedy is a compelling reason for equity to intervene and prevent injustice.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the American adoption of the equitable servitude doctrine, primarily established in the English case of Tulk v. Moxhay. It confirms that notice is the key element for enforcing a restrictive covenant in equity, bypassing the strict common law requirement of privity of estate. This ruling was foundational for the development of modern land use planning, enabling the creation of enforceable restrictions for residential subdivisions and planned communities, which rely on the principle that subsequent purchasers with notice are bound by the original covenants.
