41 Piggot v. Mason, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 412, Renoud v. Daskam, 34 Conn. 512; Blackmore v. Boardman, 28 Mo. 420; Kolasky v. Michels, 120 N. Y. (535, 24 N. E. 278. A covenant for perpetual renewal is good. Blackmore v. Boardman, 28 Mo. 420. But see Western Transp. Co. v. Lansing, 49 N. Y. 499.

42 Hurst v. Rodney, 1 Wash. C. C. 375, Fed. Cas. No. 6,937; Main v. Feathers, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 646; Jacques v. Short, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 269; Dem-arest v. Willard, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 206; Thomson-houston Electric Co. v. Durant Land Imp. Co., 144 N. Y. 34, 39 N. E. 7. Further, as to rent, see post, p. 140.

43 Vernon v. Smith, 5 Barn. & Ald. 1; Doe v. Peck, 1 Barn. & Adol. 428; Thomas' Adm'r v. Von Kapff's Ex'rs, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 372.

44 See note 44 on following page. 45 See note 45 on following page.

Sometimes covenants are inserted binding him to repair,46 to reside on the premises,47 not to engage in certain trades,48 to build in a prescribed manner,49 or, if a farm lease, to cultivate in a certain way.50 The parties may, of course, make such further special covenants as they see fit.51 Personal Covenants and Covenants Running with the Land,52

Covenants which may be enforced by the assignee53 of the term or of the reversion 54 are said to run with the land. If a covenant touches or concerns the thing demised, and there is privity of estate between the parties, it runs with the land.55 If it relates to something in existence when the lease was executed, the as44 Williams v. Earle, 9 Best & S. 740; Matthews v. Whitaker (Tex. Civ. App.) 23 S. W. 538.

45 Kew v. Trainor, 150 111. 150, 37 N. E. 223.

46 Scott v. Brick Co., 135 N. Y. 141, 31 N. E. 1102. Cf. Standen v. Chrls-mas, 10 Q. B. Dlv. 135. But see 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 2045. The covenant to repair Is always Implied. See post, p. 139.

47 Tatem v. Chaplin, 2 H. Bl. 133.

48 Miller v. Prescott, 1G3 Mass. 12, 39 N. E. 409. And see Kugel v. Painter, 106 Pa. St. 592, 31 Atl. 338; Round Lake Ass'n v. Kellogg, 141 N. Y. 348, 36 N. E. 326.

49 Mayor, etc., of New York v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 231; Mayor, etc., of New York v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 537.

50 Cockson v. Cock, Cro. Jac. 125. See, also, Callan v. Mcdaniel, 72 Ala. 96.

51 See Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 155 111. 335, 40 N. E. 587; Keating v. Springer, 146 Hi. 481, 34 N. E. 805; Pewaukee Milling Co. v. Howitt, So Wis. 270, 56 N. W. 784; Leydecker v. Brintnall, 158 Mass. 292, 33 N. E. 399; Mcmanus v. Shoe, etc., Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep'r, 73; Cargill v. Thompson, 57 Minn. 534, 59 N. W. 638.

52 See Clark, Cont. 545, for a discussion of this subject.

53 The assignee is bound by privity of estate, while the personal representative is bound by privity of contract. 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 308; Spencer's Case, 5 Coke. 16. See, also, Minshull v. Oakes, 2 Hurl. & N. 793; Martyn v. Clue, 18 Q. B. Div. 661; Hansen v. Meer, 81 III 32L

54 Assignees of the lessor could not enforce covenants against the lessee or his assignees until the statute of 32 Hen. VIII. c. 34.

55 l Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 308; Morse v. Aldrich, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 449; Piggot v. Mason, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 412; Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 136; Wooliscroft v. Norton, 15 Wis. 198; Blackmore v. Boardman, 28 Mo. 420; Gordon v. George, 12 Ind. 408; Tatem v. Chaplin, 2 H. Bl. 133; Vernon v. Smith, 5 Barn. & Aid. 1; Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1 Barn. & C. 410; Williams v.

Signees may enforce it without being named in the lease.56 But, if it relates to something not in existence at that time, the assignees must be named in the covenant, or they cannot enforce it.57 In no case, however, are the lessee's assigns bound by personal covenants between the original parties.58 Covenants to repair,59 pay rent,60 cultivate in a certain mode, for quiet enjoyment, etc., run with the land,61 as do also all implied covenants,62 while covenants purely personal, such as an agreement to pay the lessee for a building to be erected by him, do not run with the land.63 So a covenant to build a wall in a certain place would not bind an assignee of the term.64 A lessee is bound by an express covenant, even though he has assigned the term,65 and so is the lessor.66

Earle, L. R. 3 Q. B. 739. Cf. Minshull v. Oakes, 2 Hurl. & N. 793. And see, for covenants running with the land, between parties not lessor and lessee, National Union Bank v. Segur, 39 N. J. Law, 173; Hurd v. Curtis, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 459; Lyon v. Parker, 45 Me. 474.

56 Parkenham's Case, Y. B. 42 Edw. III. c. 3, pl. 14; Anon., Moore, 179, pl. 318.

57 Spencer's Case, 5 Coke, 16; Hansen v. Meyer, 81 111. 321; Masury v. Southworth, 9 Ohio St. 340; Doe v. Seaton, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 730; Verplanck V. Wright, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 506; Wakefield v. Brown, 9 Q. B. Div. 209.

58 Mayor, etc., of Congleton v. Pattison, 10 East, 130; Dolph v. White, 12 N. Y. 296; Curtiss v. White, Clarke, Ch. (N. Y.) 3S9; Inhabitants of Plymouth v. Carver, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 183; Spencer's Case, supra; Gray v. Cuthbertson, 2 Chit. 482. Cf. Mayho v. Buckhurst, Cro. Jac. 438; Dolph v. White, 12 N. Y. 296.

59 Congham v. King, Cro. Car. 221; Twynam v. Pickard, 2 Barn. & Aid. 105.

60 Trask v. Graham, 47 Minn. 571, 50 N. W. 917. But see, as to a subtenant, Holford v. Hatch, 1 Doug. 183.

61 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 313; 1 Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 673.

62 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 313.

63 Thompson v. Rose, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 266; Bream v. Dickerson, 2 Humph. ,(Tenn.) 126; Hansen v. Meyer, 81 111. 321; Mayor, etc., of Congleton v. Pattison, 10 East, 138; Sampson v. Easterby, 9 Barn. & C. 505. Cf. Thomas v. Hayward, L. R. 4 Exch. 311. Such a covenant may be enforced by an assignee of the lessee. Hunt v. Danforth, 2 Curt. 592, Fed. Cas. No. 6,887.

64 Spencer's Case, 5 Coke, 16a. And see Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. (N. Y.> 136; Masury v. Southworth, 9 Ohio St. 340.