## Facts

- Kimball owned a tract of land, recorded a subdivision plan, and sold multiple lots to plaintiffs by deeds containing uniform restrictions, including residential-only use and a 23-foot building setback from the street.
- The trial court found Kimball had established a general building scheme for the tract that included the setback restriction.
- Kimball retained the remaining portion of one lot and later arranged to convey it to Grossman.
- Grossman’s deed referenced the subdivision plan but did not include the setback or residential-use restrictions; the recorded plan itself contained no restrictions.
- Plaintiffs alleged Kimball orally represented, as an inducement to purchase, that all lots in the tract would be subject to the same restrictions and that he would impose identical restrictions on later conveyances.
- The trial court found the asserted promise to restrict the retained land was oral only and treated it as a contract concerning an interest in land within the Statute of Frauds.

## Issues

1. Whether lot purchasers whose deeds contain uniform restrictions can compel the common grantor to impose identical restrictions on subsequently sold retained land based solely on the grantor’s oral promise.
2. Whether a general building scheme and purchasers’ reliance permit equitable enforcement notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds.
3. Whether the grantor’s failure to impose restrictions on the later conveyance constitutes fraud sufficient to avoid the Statute of Frauds.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decree dismissing the bill in equity.
- The plaintiffs could not require Kimball to convey the retained land to Grossman subject to the same restrictions because the alleged agreement to impose restrictions was not in a sufficient writing.
- The court rejected the argument that nonperformance of the oral promise was fraud that would permit enforcement despite the Statute of Frauds.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictions operating as equitable easements or servitudes are interests in land that must be evidenced by a sufficient writing signed by the party to be charged to be enforceable.
- An oral agreement by a grantor to burden retained land with restrictions for the benefit of earlier grantees is a contract concerning an interest in land and falls within the Statute of Frauds.
- A general building scheme may explain or support enforcement of existing written restrictions, but it does not substitute for a writing to impose restrictions on land not effectively burdened by instrument.
- Mere nonperformance of an oral agreement is not fraud sufficient to remove the case from the Statute of Frauds.

## Conclusion

The court held that purchasers could not extend subdivision restrictions to a parcel later conveyed without restrictions where the grantor’s commitment to impose such burdens was purely oral; the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement, and breach of the oral promise was not fraud.


Sprague v. Kimball, 213 Mass. 380, 100 N.E. 622 (1913)