## Facts

- Roderick McKinnon and his wife owned a large summer estate adjacent to Bent’s Camp, an 80-acre resort later purchased by Roy Benedict and his wife.
- To help the Benedicts buy the resort, McKinnon loaned them $5,000 for the down payment; it was secured and interest-free for about seven months (foregone interest valued at about $145).
- McKinnon also promised limited assistance in supporting the resort’s business, which was later found to have been slight in actual effect.
- In exchange, the Benedicts signed a letter agreement (Aug. 31, 1960) providing that for 25 years they would (a) cut no trees between the resort and McKinnon’s property and (b) make no improvements closer to McKinnon’s property than existing buildings.
- The restrictions effectively prevented development of some of the most desirable portions of the Benedicts’ land.
- After the resort struggled financially, the Benedicts spent about $9,000 to build a trailer park and tent camping area within the restricted portion.
- McKinnon sued seeking injunctive enforcement to stop further construction and bar use of the area as a trailer park or campsite.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of equity should enforce the 25-year land-use restrictions by injunction against the Benedicts.
2. Whether the trial court could make the restrictions binding on subsequent purchasers of the Benedicts’ land.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the permanent injunction.
- The court held that, even if the agreement was a valid contract at law, it was not enforceable in equity because its operation was unconscionable and unreasonably oppressive.
- The court rejected the portion of the judgment purporting to bind subsequent purchasers, characterizing the case as a contract action between the original parties.
- The case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctions and specific performance are discretionary equitable remedies, not automatic consequences of a valid contract.
- Equity may deny enforcement where the contract is unfair in operation, imposes disproportionate hardship, or reflects sharp practice, misrepresentation, or mistake.
- An injunction should be denied when the hardship imposed outweighs the benefit gained.
- Long-term restraints on land use are disfavored; doubts are resolved in favor of the free use of property.
- A judgment in a contract action between original parties cannot, without proper basis, be extended to bind subsequent purchasers.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce, by injunction, a 25-year restriction that severely limited the Benedicts’ ability to develop their resort property in exchange for modest and largely illusory benefits to McKinnon, and it reversed the attempt to bind future purchasers through the contract judgment.


McKinnon v. Benedict, 38 Wis. 2d 607, 157 N.W.2d 665 (Wis. 1968)