
    Clement v. Burtis et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    May 12, 1890.)
    Appeal from special term, Kings county.
    Foreclosure by Amelia P. Clement against Nathaniel W. Burtis and Mary L. Burtis, his wife. At the sale, Edward J. O’Flyn became the purchaser, but subsequently refused to complete the purchase because one of the deeds in the chain of title contained the following clause: “Upon the express condition, nevertheless, that the said party of the second part, his heirs or assigns, shall not at any time or times hereafter erect, place, or permit, or suffer to be erected, placed*, or put, or remain in or upon the said premises, or any part or parcel thereof, any building or erection, or carry on any business, which shall or may cause or become a nuisance to others owning lands or contiguous thereto.” Plaintiff’s motion to compel O’Flyn to complete his purchase was granted, and O’Flyn appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J.
    
      H. C. Conrady, for appellant. H. C. M. Ingraham, for respondent.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.  