At common law, covenants entered into with the owner of land - that is to say, promises under seal made to the owner of land, and for his benefit - pass to his assignees, provided, as in other cases, they touch and concern the land conveyed, and are not merely personal.3 For instance, if the vendor of land covenants with the purchaser that he has a good right to convey the land, the benefit of the covenant will pass to an assignee of the purchaser;* but it would be otherwise in case of a covenant relating to a matter purely personal between the covenantor and covenantee.5

99 32 Hen. VIII, c. 34.

1 Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. 168; Howland v. Coffin, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 125; Perrin v. Lepper, 34 Mich. 295. Where statute requires actions to be brought in name of real party in interest, it is held that action on covenants of lease may be brought by assignee of reversioner. See Masury v. South-worth, 9 Ohio St. 340; Smith v. Harrison, 42 Ohio St. 180. See "Landlord and Tenant," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 53; Cent. Dig. §§ 129-135.

2 Spencer's Case, 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 168. See "Landlord and Tenant" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 53; Cent. Dig. §§ 129-135.

3Horn v. Miller, 136 Pa. 640, 20 Atl. 706, 9 L. R. A. 810; Kellogg v. Robinson, 6 Vt. 276, 27 Am. Dec. 550; Peden v. Railway Co., 73 Iowa, 328, 35 N. W. 424, 5 Am. St. Rep. 680; Coudert v. Sayre, 46 N. J. Eq. 386, 19 Atl. 190; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. O'Baugh, 49 Ark. 418, 5 S. W. 711; Raby v. Reeves, 112 N. C. 688, 16 S. E. 760; Hallenbeck v. Kindred, 109 N. Y. 620, 15 N. E. 887; Scott v. Stetler, 128 Ind. 385, 27 N. E. 721; De Gray v. Clubhouse Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 329, 24 Atl. 388; Lucas v. Turnpike Co., 36 W. Va. 427, 15 S. E. 182; Inhabitants of Middlefield v. Knitting Co., 160 Mass. 267, 35 N. E. 780. Covenant against paramount ground rent. Providence Life & Trust Co. v. Fiss, 147 Pa. 232, 23 Atl. 560. See "Covenants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 53; Cent. Dig. §§ 22, 52.

4 Suydam v. Jones, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 180, 25 Am. Dec. 552; Beddoe's Ex'r v. Wadsworth, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 120; Tillotson v. Prichard, 60 Vt. 94, 14 Atl. 302, 6 Am. St. Rep. 95; Flaniken v. Neal, 67 Tex. 629, 4 S. W. 212; Wead v, Larkin, 54 111. 489, 5 Am. Rep. 149; Thomas v. Bland, 91 Ky. 1, 14 S. W. 955, 11 L. R. A. 240; Succession of Cassidy, 40 La. Ann. 827, 5 South. 292; Allen v. Kennedy, 91 Mo. 324, 2 S. W. 142; Butler v. Barnes, 60 Conn. 170, 21 Atl..

On the other hand, covenants entered into by the owner of land which restrict his enjoyment of the land do not, at common law, bind his assignee, except where he creates certain well-known interests, such as easements, recognized by the common law.6 If a man endeavors to create restrictions on his land other than such interests, he cannot so affix them to the land as to bind subsequent owners. As said by Lord Brougham: "It must not, therefore, be supposed that incidents of a novel kind can be devised and attached to property, at the fancy or caprice of any owner. * * * Great detriment would arise, and much confusion of rights, if parties were allowed to invent new modes of holding and enjoying real property, and to impress upon their lands and tenements a peculiar character, which should follow them into all hands, however remote." 7