The Minority Doctrine Concerning Direct Restraints on Alienation
Bernhard, Herbert A.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by4
- 1982Damen Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co. Ill. App. Ct.
- 1975Baker v. Loves Park Savings & Loan Ass'n Ill.
- 1973Malouff v. Midland Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n Colo.
- 1966Neidler v. Donaldson Seneca Cty. Prob. Ct.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Restraints on the legal power of alienation which arise by acts of the parties can be classified into three categories: disabling restraints, forfeiture restraints and promissory restraints. A disabling restraint exists when the property involved is under a direction that it shall not be alienated. A forfeiture restraint exists when the property involved will be forfeited upon alienation of the property by the conveyee. A promissory restraint exists when the conveyee has promised not to alienate the property; it may arise out of a covenant either in the conveyance itself or in a separate contract.