If all the covenants of a contract have been performed except the negative covenants, injunction may be given if the proper circumstances for the exercise of equitable relief are present.1 Thus a negative covenant as to the use of realty,2 as that buildings erected thereon shall be set back a certain distance from the street,3 or that buildings of a certain kind and cost only shall be erected upon the realty,4 or that certain realty shall not be used for the sale of intoxicating liquor,5 or for hotel purposes,6 or for a church,7 or for breaking stone,8 or covenants as to the use of leased premises,9 such as provide for the kind of building to be erected by the lessee on the leased premises,10 or providing that the lessee of realty situated in the grounds of a camp-meeting should pay an admission fee to such grounds,11 can be enforced by injunction. Contracts as to the use of realty need not be in the deed to be thus enforced; as contracts collateral to a conveyance or entirely disconnected from any conveyance, such as agreements between adoining land owners as to the use to be made of their respective lands.12 Covenants which create easements may be protected by injunction, such as a contract to divert only so much water as can be pumped through a pipe not exceeding two inches in diameter.13

1 Winnipesaukee Association v. Grodon, 63 N. H. 505; 3 Atl. 426.

2 Lattimore v. Livermore, 72 N. Y. 174.

3 Hills v. Metzenroth, 173 Mass. 423; 53 N. E. 890; Jackson v. Stevenson. 156 Mass. 496; 32 Am. St. Rep. 476; 31 N. E. 691; Frink v. Hughes, - Mich. - ; 94 N. W. 601; Buck v. Adams, 45 N. J. Eq. 552; 17 Atl. 961; Gawtry v. Leland. 40 N. J. Eq. 323; Gawtry v. Leland. 31 N. J. Eq. 385; McGuire v. Cas-key, 62 0. S. 419; 57 N. E. 53.

4 Frink v. Hughes, - Mich. - ; 94 N. W. 601.

5 Hall v. Solomon. 61 Conn. 476; 29 Am. St. Rep. 218; 23 Atl. 876; Star Brewing Co. v. Primas, 163 I11. 652; 45 N. E. 145; Sutton v. Head,

86 Ky. 156; 9 Am. St. Rep. 274; 5 S. W. 410; Watrous v. Allen, 57 Mich. 362; 58 Am. St. Rep. 363; 24 N. W. 104.

6 Stines v. Dorman. 25 O. S. 580.

7 St. Andrew's Church's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 512.

8 Haskell v. Wright, 23 N. J. Eq. 389.

9 Wertheimer v. Circuit Judge, 83 Mich. 56; 47 N. W. 47; Stees v. Kranz, 32 Minn. 313; 20 N. W. 241.

10 Kraft v. Welch. 112 la. 695; 84 N. W. 908. (Where lessee was authorized to erect a store building to be used in connection with the other buildings which were leased for creamery purposes.)