Same - In Equity

Courts of equity, however, have established a class of exceptions to the above rule. They have been mainly confined to covenants in the case of land sold for building purposes, though there seems no good reason for any limitation of the principle on which they are enforced. An illustration of this class of cases is where the vendor of land covenants that he will never use the adjoining land, retained by him, otherwise than in a particular manner. Where he afterwards sells this adjoining land to one who has notice of the covenant, the latter is bound by the covenant. The principle has been thus stated: "That this court has jurisdiction to enforce a contract between the owner of land and his neighbor purchasing a part of it that the latter shall either use or abstain from using the land purchased in a particular way is what I never knew disputed. * * * It is said that, the covenant being one which does not run with the land, this court cannot enforce it; but the question is not whether the covenant runs with the land, but whether a party shall be permitted to use the land in a manner inconsistent with the contract entered into by his vendor, and with notice of which he purchased." 8

419, 12 L. R. A. 273. But see Mygatt v. Coe, 124 N. Y. 212, 26 N. E. 611, 11 L. R. A. 646; Id., 142 N. Y. 78, 36 N. E. 870, 24 L. R. A. 850. See "Covenants;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 53-56; Cent. Dig. §§ 22, 52, 58.

5 Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444, 13 Am. Rep. 611; Masury v. Southworth, 9 Ohio St. 340; Glenn v. Canby, 24 Md. 127; Indianapolis Water Co. v. Nulte, 126 Ind. 373, 26 N. E. 72; Brewer v. Marshall, 18 N. J. Eq. 337; Id., 19 N. J. Eq. 537, 97 Am. Dec. 679; Costigan v. Railroad Co., 54 N. J. Law, 233, 23 Atl. 810; Lyford v. Railroad Co., 92 Cal. 93, 28 Pac. 103. It has been held that the right to reimbursement, or liability to reimburse, for the use of a party wall, under an agreement between adjoining landowners, is personal, and that it does not run with the land. Cole v. Hughes, supra; Todd v. Stokes, 10 Pa. 155; Gibson v. Holden, 115 111. 199, 3 N. E. 282, 56 Am. Rep. 146; Nalle v. Paggi (Tex. Sup.) 9 S. W. 205, 1 L. R. A. 33. But see Conduitt v. Ross, 102 Ind. 166, 26 N. E. 19S; King v. Wight, 155 Mass. 444, 29 N. E. 644; Mott v. Oppenheimer, 135 N. Y. 312, 31 N. E. 1097, 17 L. R. A. 409. A covenant to support an old man in consideration of a conveyance by him is personal, and cannot be shifted to a purchaser of the land from the grantee. Divan v. Loomis, 68 Wis. 150, 31 N. W. 760. See "Covenants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 53-56; Cent. Dig. §§ 22, 52, 53.

6 Gibson v. Porter (Ky.) 15 S. W. 871; Hagerty v. Lee, 54 N. J. Law, 5S0, 25 Atl. 319, 20 L. R. A. 631; Id., 50 N. J. Eq. 464, 26 Atl. 537; Costigan v. Railroad Co., 54 N. J. Law*, 233, 23 Atl. 810. See "Covenants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 70; Cent. Dig. §§ 70, 11.

7 Keppell v. Bailey, 2 Mylne & K. 517. And see Masury v. Southworth, 9 Ohio St. 340; Weld v, Nichols, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 538; Martin v. Drinan, 128 Mass. 515; Hazlett v. Sinclair, 76 Ind. 488, 40 Am. Rep. 254; West Virginia Transp. Co. v. Pipe Line Co., 22 W. Va. 600, 46 Am. Rep. 527; Brewer v. Marshall, 18 N. J. Eq. 337; National Union Bank at Dover v. Segur, 39 N. J. Law, 184; Dorsey v. Railroad Co., 58 111. 65; Kennedy v. Owen, 136 Mass. 199; Maynard v. Polheinus, 74 Cal. 141, 15 Pac. 451; Scott v. McMillan, 76