Gallagher v. Bell
Court of Appeals of Maryland
516 A.2d 1028 (1986)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Gallagher (defendant) purchased land from Sisters of Mercy and executed an agreement to assume obligations established under a covenant between the Sisters of Mercy and Bell (plaintiff). The agreement provided that the obligations of the covenant would be binding upon Gallagher’s heirs and assigns. Gallagher executed a separate agreement with Bell affirming his assumption of the obligations of the covenant. Gallagher later sold the property to Camalier. Camalier knew about the obligations of the covenants at the time of purchase and demanded that Gallagher execute an indemnification agreement as a condition of sale. Bell sought to enforce the covenant against Camalier, which required the dedication of land for street construction and payment of a pro rata share of construction costs. Camalier refused to honor the covenant, citing the indemnification agreement executed by Gallagher. In response, Bell filed suit against Gallagher. The trial court treated as a question of fact whether the original covenant ran with the land or imposed a personal obligation upon Gallagher and submitted the question to a jury. The jury concluded that the covenant did not run with the land and awarded judgment in favor of Bell. Gallagher appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
