Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/296

280 28o HAR VARD LA W RE VIE W. for an unreasonable time ; but his acquiescence in a minor breach is not a waiver of the whole restriction. 1 For example, acqui- escence in the maintenance of a low building does not permit the erection of a higher structure ; 2 nor does acquiescence in a small stable waive objections to one intended for use by a street railway. 3 When similar restrictions are placed on a number of lots, the release of the restrictions as to some lots will release them as to all, if the general scheme of improvement has been materially affected by the partial releases, 4 but otherwise if the releases do not detract from the value of the remaining restrictions. 5 This rule is part of a broad principle that equity will not interfere where, on account of changed conditions, a restriction no longer accomplishes the purpose for which it was designed — that is, where its usefulness is gone, though the burden still remains. In the British Museum case 6 a restriction was imposed for the benefit of land occupied by a palace and a park ; the land was subse- quently cut up into small lots and covered with buildings, and it was held that the restriction was gone. So when a restriction against trades is intended to improve a neighborhood as a resi- dential quarter and the neighborhood has lost that character, the restriction will not be enforced. 7 In no case will a restriction be enforced unless it is of value commensurate with the burden. But it is unnecessary to show that the particular breach which it is sought to enjoin will cause substantial damage ; 8 provided the restriction has some sub- stantial value, any breach will be enjoined unless so trivial as to come within the principle de minimis? The third essential of a restriction, as has been stated, is the intention that it should bind future owners of the land. This is always an ordinary question of construction ; no words of limita- tion, no mention of " assigns," are necessary. 10 There are two cases, 1 Richards v. Revitt, 7 Chan. Div. 224. 2 Gaskin v. Balls, 13 Chan. Div. 324. 8 Whitney v. Union St. Rwy., 1 1 Gray, 359. 6 Macher v. Foundling Hosp., I Ves. & B. 188; German v. Chapman, 7 Chan. Div. 271. ' 2 My. & K. 552. 7 Sayers v. Collyer, 24 Chan. Div. 180; Thacher v. Columbia Coll., 87 N. Y. 311. 8 Mannusz Johnson, 1 Chan. Div. 673 ; Tipping v. Eckersley, 2 K. & J. 264, at 270. 9 Att. Gen. v. Algonquin Club, 153 Mass. 447. 10 Wilkinson v. Rogers, 10 Jur. N. s., 792; Hodges v. Sloan, 107 N. Y. 244.
 * Peck v. Williams, L. R. 3 Eq. 15; Williams v. Roper, Turn. & R. 18.