Elliston v Reacher: CA 2 Jan 1908

Lord Cozens Hardy MR said: ‘It is laid down in Co. Litt. 230b, that a man who takes the benefit of a deed, is bound by a condition contained in it, though he does not execute it.’
Farwell J referred to Osborne v Bradley, and said: ‘With reference to the power of the vendor to vary the conditions, I pointed out in Osborne v. Bradley that it was one element to consider and assist the Court in arriving at the conclusion of fact whether there was or was not a scheme, and nothing more than that. I never intended to suggest that it was fatal to the existence of a scheme.’

Lord Cozens Hardy MR, Farwell J
[1908] 2 Ch 665
England and Wales
Appeal from (approved)Elliston v Reacher ChD 1908
The court was asked whether a building scheme had been established.
Held: It had. The court set out the factors which must be shown to establish a building scheme on an estate; Both plaintiff and defendant’s titles must derive from the same . .
CitedOsborne v Bradley ChD 1903
The plaintiff had sold land to the purchaser, subject to covenants restricting the development on the land to private dwellings and prohibiting manufacture, trade or business on the land. The purchaser built two houses and subsequently sold the land . .

Cited by:
CitedSmall v Oliver and Saunders (Developments) Ltd ChD 25-May-2006
The claimant said his property had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme so as to allow him to object to the building of an additional house on a neighbouring plot in breach of a covenant to build only one house on the plot. Most but not all . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.219175