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 ren- 
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.1. 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: 
% Phez v. Salem Fruit Union, 201 Pac. 222, 205 Pac. 970. 
% Sjobbom v. Mark, 103 Minn. 201, 114 N. W. 746, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1185. 
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. 
