Prop Cases

Front 1

Johnson v. Macintosh

Back 1

Acquisition by Discovery
Indians and Court sold land to two parties. The court held that the person who got it from the Indians had no rights because the Indians had no rights.

Front 2

{Adverse Possession}
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz

Back 2

- Held that an adverse possessor had to “Substantially enclose” or “usually cultivate or improve” the property.

Front 3

{Acquisition}
Ghen v. Rich (Whale Case)

Back 3

Can look to custom to determine "possession"

Front 4

{Acquisition}
Keeble v. Hickergill (Duck Blind)

Back 4

- A party can recover against another for interfering maliciously with his ability to use his land for pleasure and profit

Front 5

{Nuisance}
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement

Back 5

- Here the damages were very small compared to the cost of the factory.
- The court held that the holdour cost was too high, and they told the cement company to pay, but no injunction.

Front 6

{Nuisance}
Spur v. Webb (Cow Poop)

Back 6

- Man had cow farm with lots of nuisancy poop. Developers started to build residence around his farm.
- The guy had to move, but he was also awarded damages.

Front 7

{Adverse Possession}
Manillo v. Gorski

Back 7

- A small amount of land along a common boundry is NOT open and notorious.

Front 8

{Concurrent relationships}
Spiner v. Mackereth

Back 8

- Ouster only occurs when one party doesn't let the other party use the property.
Must be total

Front 9

{Concurrent relationships}
Swartzburgh v. Sampson {boxing orchard}

Back 9

- 60 acre farm, and one co-owner leases 4 acres for boxing.
- The boxing ring was not ouster.

Front 10

{Estates}
Garner v. Garish

Back 10

- A tenancy that is only terminable by one party, may be construed as a tenancy for life.

Front 11

{Quiet Enjoyment}
Reste Realty v. Cooper {Water in basement case}

Back 11

- People had house, they used the basement for business.
- Basement flooded because of new grading. New landlord didn't fix.
- Because it was agreed upon use, there was constructive eviction.

Front 12

{IWOH}
Hilder v. St. Peter (Poop House)

Back 12

- House had all sorts of problems
- Person could stay and get damages because it was a breach of IWOH.

Front 13

{Easements}
Lutherens Case

Back 13

- Easements in gross are not assignable unless everyone who has an interest agrees and it is commercial.
-

Front 14

{Easements}
Brown v. Voss {Road to C case}

Back 14

- One party wanted to extend their easement across A to not only get B but to also get to the farther parcel of C.
- The court said

Front 15

{Easement}
Presault v. U.S. {RR/Park)

Back 15

- U.S. had an easement for a RR road. Wanted to change it into a park. P said that they abandoned it and that they couldn't change the scope of the easement.
- Court said you can only vary it in a foreseeable way, not change the scope. The change they wanted would be too big. Also, that they abandoned the property because they tore up the tracks.

Front 16

{Equitable Servitudes}
Sanbourn v. Mclane

Back 16

- Most of the lots from the developer had a covenant that they could only be residential. Some did not. D got one that didn't and tried to build a gas station.
- Court said that if most have a promise, then it will be implied into those that don't as long as:
1) Common owner, 2) parces out lots), 3) notice (inquiry here), 4) promise is mutual.

Front 17

{Covenants}
Western Land (mall)

Back 17

- There was a covenant that said there had to only be single family housing.
- Guy wants to build a mall. Argues that things had changed too much.
- Court said that the original purpose could still be accomplushed and there were still benefits to enforcement. So no go.

Front 18

{Covenants}
Rick v. West (Woman with her cats)

Back 18

- Woman had the last parcel of land that had a covenanty for single family homes. someone else bought up all the rest of the land and wanted to build a hospital.
- Court held that there was not enough changed conditions even though she was the only one left.

Front 19

{Zoning}
Commons v. Westwood (Narrow House)

Back 19

- They had a lot that the bought before an ordinance that said their lot was to narrow to build on. They said this was undue hardship.
- the court agreed.