LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. 29 



RUNNING WITH LAND. 



Contracts entered into by cooperative associations with their 

 members sometimes contain clauses which provide that the contract 

 shall '• run with the land " ; that is, that the purchaser of the 

 farm shall be obligated by the contract entered into by a former 

 owner of the farm with the association. Is such a provision binding 

 on the purchaser of the farm? Of course, if the cooperative associ- 

 ation and the purchaser of the farm acquiesce in the matter no ques- 

 tion would arise. But in case the purchaser of the farm refuses 

 to recognize the provision in the contract referred to, what is the 

 situation ? 



The only case that has been found relative to a cooperative associ- 

 ation in which this question was raised is an Oregon one.^^ In this 

 case the contract involved contained a provision reading as follows : 



It is understood that the conditions herein contained shall run with the 

 land on which said berries are to be raised and shall bind the parties herein, 

 their heirs, administrators, and assigns. 



The court said with reference to this provision : 



The clause providing that the covenants in the agreement should " run with 

 the land " was no doubt considered important. Although it is doubtful whether 

 it could be enforced in an action at law. * * * whether an equitable rem- 

 edy would arise out of such a covenant need not here be considered. 



It is certain that a purchaser of a farm who had no notice of such 

 a provision in the contract of his predecessor with a cooperative 

 association would not be bound either in law or in equity.^^ 



INTERFERENCE BY THIRD PERSONS. 



It is a general rule of law, where a stranger to a contract wrong- 

 fully induces a party to a contract to commit a breach thereof or dis- 

 ables such party from performing the contract, that the injured party 

 to the contract has a cause of action against the wrongdoer for the 

 loss suffered.^ This principle was applied in an Oregon case^ in 

 which it appeared that an association composed of growers of logan- 

 berries entered into a contract with a buyer of the berries. The asso- 

 ciation had contracts with its members obligating them to deliver 

 loganberries to it for delivery to the buyer. The members failed to 

 deliver the berries to the association, and the buyer brought suit 

 against the association and its members. The members claimed that 

 they could not be sued, as the contract was with the association and 

 not with them. In answer to this contention the court said : 



»8 Phez V. Salem Fruit Union, 201 Pac. 222, 205 Pac. 970. 



s» Sjobbom V. Mark, 103 Minn. 201, 114 N. W. 746, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1135. 



1 Angle V. Chicago, St. Paul Ry., 150 U. S. 1 ; Westinghouse Co. v. Diamond S. F. Co. 

 268 Fed. 121 ; Beckman v. Masters, 195 Mass. 205, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 201. 



2 Phez Co. V. Salem Fruit Union, 201 Pac. 222, 205 Pac. 970. 



