Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantinjunction
injunctionappealleaseeasementrespondentappellant

Related Cases

Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U.S. 261, 8 S.Ct. 461, 31 L.Ed. 430
View Case »
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 10 Otto 313, 1879 WL 16543, 25 L.Ed. 667
View Case »
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 148 U.S.P.Q. 459
View Case »
Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 26 S.Ct. 127, 50 L.Ed. 274
View Case »
McWilliams v. Bragg, 3 Wis. 424, 1854 WL 3450
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rowbotham v. Jackson, 68 S.D. 566, 5 N.W.2d 36, 142 A.L.R. 193

Facts

Geo. H. Carr originally owned the townsite of Bison and conveyed Lot 11 to John A. Jackson with specific building restrictions. Carr later conveyed the adjoining Lot 12 to W. H. Rowbotham, which included rights under the building restriction on Lot 11. The defendants intended to place a wooden building on Lot 11, which did not comply with the restrictions outlined in the deed. Rowbotham sought to enjoin this action, claiming rights based on the previous conveyances.

Geo. H. Carr was the original owner of the townsite of Bison, South Dakota. He platted certain land into blocks and lots. Only Lots 11 and 12 of Block 7, original town of Bison are concerned in this action.

Issue

Did E. M. Rowbotham have any interest in Lot 11 that would allow him to maintain an action for an injunction against the defendants?

The ultimate question involved seems to be, Did the respondent when he commenced his action own or hold any interest in appellant's Lot 11 of Block 7, Town of Bison, which would permit him to maintain the action for an injunction?

Rule

The court examined whether the stipulations in the deed from Carr to Jackson created a covenant running with the land for the benefit of Lot 12, and whether Rowbotham had any enforceable rights under those stipulations.

It must be conceded that the warranty deed conveyed an estate in fee simple. The language used can at most be interpreted as a revertible right to the grantors only.

Analysis

The court determined that the language in the deed from Carr to Jackson created a reverter clause that was personal to the grantors and did not benefit any subsequent owners, including Rowbotham. The stipulations were not intended to run with the land or create enforceable rights for adjoining lot owners. Therefore, Rowbotham's claim to enforce the restrictions was inconsistent with the terms of the deed.

It seems apparent from the record that the burden created by the language in the deed to Lot 11 only could exist during the lifetime of the grantors or until released by them, however, it is not in the nature of an easement or a servitude which could in any manner attach to Lot 12.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment in favor of Rowbotham, concluding that he did not possess any enforceable interest in Lot 11 to maintain the injunction against Jackson.

The judgment appealed from is reversed.

Who won?

John A. Jackson prevailed in the case because the court found that E. M. Rowbotham lacked the necessary interest in Lot 11 to enforce the building restrictions.

The reverter language used in the deed from Carr and his wife to appellant Jackson pertains to Lot 11 and for and during the lifetime of the grantors. It does not purport to be made for the benefit of any other person.

You must be