The Canadian would-be buyer of a three-bedroom, two-bath house in Jasper County, South Carolina discovered the developers had neglected to inform her of one little detail.

(The local reporter has a few problems with the English language, but one gathers that:)

In 1998, the then-owner of the 1700-acre Delta Plantation, Henry E. Ingram Jr. (a man of decidedly Southern irredentist opinions) when he sold his acreage to Bluffton Home Builders, inserted a few small covenants in the deed.

Mr. Ingram’s covenants stipulated that the property, or subdivisions thereof, could not be sold or leased to:

1. Yankees.

2. Persons bearing the last name Sherman (vide: General William Tecumseh Sherman).

3. Persons bearing last names whose letters could possibly be rearranged to spell Sherman.

Ms. Legare, the would-be buyer (who, being Canadian, would not be personally impacted by Mr. Ingram’s covenants, but who obviously might like to be able resell her house some fine day) and Bluffton Home Builders are now working with Mr. Ingram’s son, Mr. Ashley Ingram, a local attorney (who probably has some personal interest in the matter) to get those covenants removed. But Henry Ingram, now a resident of Corpus Christi, Texas disagrees. The older Mr. Ingram wants his covenants defended and enforced, and is planning to move to Costa Rica, presumably to get further away from those damned Yankees.

———————–

FOLLOW-UP

Alfred L. Brophy tells us he covered the Ingram covenants back in 1998. (Did blogs exist in 1998?)

Mr. Brophy also provides addiional detail: Yankees are defined as people who’ve lived north of the Mason-Dixon line for more than a year or were born north of the Mason-Dixon line. But Ingram also included an exemption: if a Yankee takes a Southern loyalty oath and whistles Dixie as a sign of loyalty, then he is permitted to buy the property.

Paper by Messrs. Brophy & Ghosh on the Unconstitutionality of the Ingram Covenants offers excellent historical background and legal detail; but, alas! the authors do take an unsound view of the desirability of enforcing such covenants.