The covenant that the grantor has a right to convey the land is usually equivalent to the covenant for seisin, whichever view of the operation of the latter covenant may be taken in the particular jurisdiction, and similar considerations determine the question of breach in the case of each covenant.97 There may, however, be a right to convey, though there is no seisin or title, as when the conveyance is under a power.98

Sec. 452. Covenant against incumbrances

An "incumbrance," as the term is used in a covenant that the premises are free and clear of all incumbrances, has been denned, in a general way, as "every right to or interest in the land which may subsist in third persons, to the diminution of the value of the land, but consistent with the passing of the fee by the conveyance.99

A lien1 is ordinarily an incumbrance, whether it is a mortgage,2 a judgment lien,3 a lien for taxes,4 or any other of the various classes of liens.5

97. Peters v. Bowman, 98 U. S. 56, 25 L. Ed. 91; Copeland v. Mcadory, 100 Ala. 553, 13 So. 545; Adams v. Schiffer, 11 Colo. 15, 7 Am. St. Rep. 202; Mitchell v. Kepler, 75 Iowa, 207, 39 N. W. 241; Allen v. Say ward, 5 Me. 227; Baldwin v. Timmins, 3 Gray. (Mass.) 302; Willard v. Twit-chell, 1 N. H. 177; Faller v. Davis, 30 Okla. 56, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1181, 118 Pac. 382; Building, Light & Water Co. v. Fray, 96 Vt. 559, 32 S. E. 58.

98. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 66. See Devore v. Sunderland, 17 Ohio, 52, 49 Am. Dec. 442; Slater v. Rawson, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 439.

99. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 75; Tuskegee Land & Security Co. v. Birmingham Realty Co., 161 Ala. 542, 49 So. 378, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 992; Fraser v. Bentel, 161 Cal. 390, 119 Pac. 509, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1062; Kelsey v. Remer, 43 Conn. 129, 21 Am. Rep. 638; Prescott v. Trueman, 4 Mass. 630, 3 Am. Dec. 246; Simons v. Diamond Datch Co., 159 Mich. 241, 123 N. W. 1132; Carter v. Den-man's Ex'rs, 23 N. J. L. 260; Huyck v. Andrews, N. Y. 81, 10 Am. St. Rep. 432; Lafferty v. Milligan, 165 Pa. St. 534, 30 Atl. 1030.

1. See post, Part 6.

An easement is, generally speaking, an incumbrance,6 as has been recognized, for instance, in the

2. Bean v. Mayo, 5 Me. 94; Brooks v. Moody, 25 Ark. 452; Mclaughlin v. Rice, 108 Iowa, 254, 78 N. W. 1105; Wyman v. Ballard, 12 Mass. 304; Hasselbuch v. Mohm-king, 76 N. J. L. 691, 73 Atl. 961; Corbett v. Wrenn, 25 Or. 305, 35 Pac. 658; Funk v. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 109, 14 Am. Dec. 617.

3. Jenkins v. Hopkins, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 346; Holman v. Creag-miles, 14 Ind. 177; Hall v. Dean, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 105; Jones v. Davis, 24 Wis. 229.

4. Fuller v. Jillett (C. C), 2 Fed. 30; Crowell v. Packard, 35 Ark. 348; Almy v. Hunt, 48 111. 45; Cochran v. Guild, 106 Mass. 29, 8 Am. Rep. 296; Eaton v. Chesebrough, 82 Mich. 214, 46 N. W. 365; Campbell v. Mcclure, 45 Neb. 608, 63 N. W. 920; Cadmus v. Fagan, 47 N. J. Law 549, 4 Atl. 323; Plowman v. Williams, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 268; George A. Lowe Co. v. Simmons Warehouse Co., 39 Utah 395, 117 Pac. 874, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 246.

So the lien of a special assessment for the benefits of a municipal improvement. Maloy v. Hall, 190 Mass. 277, 76 N. E. 452; Real Estate Corp. of New York City v. Harper, 174 N. Y. 123, 66 N. E. 660; Green v. Tid-ball, 26 Wash. 338, 55 L. R. A. 879, 67 Pac. 84.

Under some tax systems, taxes may be an incumbrance within the covenant although the amount thereof has not been ascertained at the time of conveyance. Hill v. Bacon, 110 Mass. 387; Pierse v. Bronnenberg's Estate, 40 Ind. App. 662, 81 N. E. 739, 82 N. E. 126; George A. Lowe Co. v. Simmons Warehouse Co., 39 Utah 395, 117 Pac. 874, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 246; Peters v. Myers, 22 Wis. 602. And likewise liability to payment of benefits for a municipal improvement may constitute an incumbrance even before the amount of the benefits is ascertained. See First Church of Christ, Scientists, of New Albany, v. Cox, 47 Ind. App. 536, 94 N. E. 1048; Cotting v. Commonwealth, 205 Mass. 523, 91 N. E. 900: Hartshorn v. Cleveland, 52 N. J. L. 473, 19 Atl. 974; Lafferty v. Milligan, 165 Pa. 534, 30 Atl. 1030; Bowers v. Narragansett Real Estate Co.. 28 R. I. 365. 67 Atl. 521; Knowles v. Temple, 49 Wash. 595, 96 Pac. 1.

5. So, an attachment lien (Kelsey v. Remer, 43 Conn. 129, 21 Am. Rep. 638, and Norton v. Babcock, 2 Mete. [Mass.] 510); a vendor's lien (Thomas v. St. Paul's M. E. Church, 86 Ala. 138. 5 So. 508).

6. Weiss v. Binnian. 178 111. 241, 52 N. E. 969, Mackey v. Harmon, 34 Minn. 168, 24 N. W. 702; Jarvis v. Buttrick, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 480; Smith v. Davis, 44 Kan. 362, 24 Pac. 428; Huyek v. Andrews, 113 N. Y.

Case of a private right of way over the land conveyed,7 a right to maintain a drain or artificial water course thereon,8 or a right to flow the land.9 An easement, however, created by "implication" upon the conveyance of a quasi servient tenement, has been regarded as not within a covenant against incumbrances in such a conveyance, or as in any way affected by such covenant.11 A natural right in the owner of neighboring land, such as a right to the uninterrupted flow of a stream,12 is not within such a covenant,13 but a privilege in a third person to interfere with such a natural right, being in the nature of an easement,14 is within it,15 as is the privilege of taking water from a spring or stream on the land.16

A covenant as to the use of land, or a restriction

*

81. 3 L. R. A. 789, 10 Am. St. Rep. 432, 20 N. E. 581; Smith t. White, 71 W. Va. 639. 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 623, 78 S. E. 378.

7. Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 497; Newmyer v. Roush, 21 Idaho, 106 Ann Cas. 1913D, 433, 120 Pac. 464; Megowen v. Myers, 60 Iowa 256; 14 N. W. 788; Blake v. Everett, 1 Allen (Mass.) 248; Wilson v. Cochran, 46 Pa. St. 229.

8. Prescott v. White, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 341, 32 Am. Dec. 266: Johnson v. Knapp, 146 Mass. 70, 15 N. E. 134; Mcmullin v. Wooley, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 394; Smith v. Spragne, 40 Vt. 43.