The Beekman Estate v. . Foster

New York Court of Appeals

The Beekman Estate v. . Foster

134 N.E. 555, 232 N.Y. 521, 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 546

New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 22, 1921·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think that the restrictive covenants, read in the fight of the surrounding circumstances, must be held to have been intended as a burden running with the land.

The judgment which describes the defendants’ easement as “ perpetual ” does not, by such description, affect the power of the Supreme Court to withhold the remedy of injunction upon facts sufficient to justify the *522 substitution of money damages in the exercise of a sound discretion.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We think that the restrictive covenants, read in the fight of the surrounding circumstances, must be held to have been intended as a burden running with the land.

The judgment which describes the defendants’ easement as “ perpetual ” does not, by such description, affect the power of the Supreme Court to withhold the remedy of injunction upon facts sufficient to justify the *522 substitution of money damages in the exercise of a sound discretion.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

The Beekman Estate v. . Foster, 134 N.E. 555, 232 N.Y. 521, 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 546 (N.Y. 1921).

Pincite

134 N.E. 555 (The Beekman Estate v. . Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.