Even in jurisdictions where, as in England, the burden of a covenant does not run with the land, an agreement as to the use of land may, under certain circumstances, affect a subsequent purchaser of the land who takes with notice of the agreement, equity in such case enjoining a use of the land in violation of such agreement.1 As stated in the leading case on the subject,la "the question is not whether the covenant runs with the land, but whether a party shall be permitted to use the land

Sec.

394.

General considerations.

394.

Character of agreement.

396.

Theory of enforcement.

397.

Persons subject to restriction.

398.

Notice.

399.

Persons entitled to enforce restriction.

400.

Existence of general plan.

401.

Defenses to enforcement.

1. See, on the subject of this chapter, an excellent article by Professor George L. Clark, in 1G Mich. Law Rev. at p. 90. la. Tulk v. Moxhay, 2 Phillips, 774. See, to the same effect, De Mattos v. Gibson, 4 De G. & J. 276; Luker v. Dennis, 7 Ch. Div. 227; Mc.mahon v. Williams, 79 Ala. 288; Bryant v. Grosse, 155 Cal. 132, 99 Pac. 99; Frye v. Partridge, 82 111. 267; Hutchinson v. Ulrich, 145 111. 336, 21 L. R. A. 391, 34 N. E. 556; Wieg-man v. Kusel, 270 111. 520, 110 N. E. 886; Newbold v. Peabody

Heights Co. of Baltimore, 70 Md. 493, 3 L. R. A. 579, 17 Atl. 372; Feabody Heights Co. of Baltimore City v. Willson, 82 Md. 186, 36 L. R. A. 393, 32 Atl. 386, 1077; Whitney v. Union Ry. Co., 11 Gray (Mass.) 359, 71 Am. Dec. 715; Watrous v. Allen, 57 Mich. 362, 58 Am. St. Rep. 363, 24 N. W. 104; Burbank v. Pillsbury, 48 N. H. 475, 97 Am. Dec. 633; Kirk-patrick v. Peshine, 24 N. J. Eq. 206; Coudert v. Sayre, 46 N. J. Eq. 386, 19 Atl. 190; Hayes v. Waverly & P. Ry. Co., 51 N. J. Eq. 345; Cotton v. Cresse, 80 N.

L425 in a manner inconsistent with the contract entered into by his vendor, and with notice of which he purchased." The person thus affected by the agreement as to the use of the land may be a purchaser, a lessee,2 or a mere occupant of the land under license.3 Such an agreement may occur in connection with a conveyance of land, restricting the grantor, or the subsequent transferees of the grantor, as regards the use of land retained by him.4 or restricting the grantee as regards the use of the land conveyed.5 Or it may be independent of any conveyance of land, being merely an agreement between adjoining owners as regards the use of their land.6

J. Eq. 540, 85 Atl. 600; Wootton v. Seltzer, 84 N. J. Eq. 207, 93 Atl. 1087; Tallmadge v. East River Bank, 26 N. Y. 105; Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y. 440; Hodge v. Sloan, 107 N. Y. 244, 1 Am. St. Rep. 816, 17 N. E. 335; Hills v. Miller, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 254, 24 Am. Dec. 218; Brown v. Huber, 80 Ohio St. 183, 88 N. E. 322; St. Andrew's Lutheran Church's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 512; Town of Middletown v. Newport Hospital, 16 R. I. 319, 15 Atl. 800; Ball v. Milliken, 31 R. I. 36, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 623, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1334, 76 Atl. 789.

2. Wilson v. Hart, 1 Ch. App. 463; Spicer v. Martin, 14 App. Cas. 12; Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen (Mass.) 341, 83 Am. Dec. 632.

3. Mander v. Falcke [1891] 2 Ch. 554.

4. See e. g., Halle v. Newbold, 69 Md. 265; Bridgewater v. Ocean City R. Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 798, 52 Atl. 1130; Brown v. Huber, 80 Ohio St. 183, 88 N. E. 322; Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 510, 27 Am. Dec. 80; Nicoll v. Fenning, L. R. 19 Ch. Div. 258.

5. See e. g., Weil v. Hill, 193 Ala. 407, 69 So. 438; Los Angeles Terminal Land Co. v. Muir, 136 Cal. 36, 68 Pac. 310; Judd v. Robinson, 41 Colo. 222, 124 Am. St. Rep. 128, 14 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1018, 92 Pac. 724; Hays v. St. Paul M. E. Church, 196 111. 633, 63 N. E. 1040; Peck v. Conway, 119 Mass. 546; Watrous v. Allen, 57 Mich. 362, 58 Am. Rep. 363, 24 N. W. 104; Coughlin v. Barker, 46 Mo. App. 54; Condert v. Sayre, 46 N. J. Eq. 386, 10 Atl. 190; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N. Y. 400; Smith v. Graham, 217 N. Y. 655, 112 N. E. 1076; Clark v. Martin, 49 Pa. 289.

6. Bryan v. Grosse, 155 Cal. 132, 99 Pac. 499; Codman v. Bradley, 201 Mass. 361, 87 N. E. 591, Ericksen v. Tapert, 172 Mich. 457, 138 N. W. 330; Supplee v. Cohen, 81 N. J. Eq. 500, 86 Atl. 366; Cotton v. Cresse, 80 N. J. Eq. 540.

That the grantor of land is expressly given a right of forfeiture in case of the breach by the grantee of a provision restrictive of the use to be made of the land does not of itself preclude the enforcement of such a provision by injunction.7

The courts do not favor restrictions upon the utilization of land, and that a particular mode of utilization is excluded by agreement must clearly appear.7a If this does appear, the fact that the person seeking relief cannot show that such user of the land will cause him actual damage is usually immaterial,7b though it may happen that the particular violation of the agreement sought to be restrained is so unimportant that equity will not intervene.7cthe court will give relief when necessary by a mandatory as well as by a prohibitory injunction.7b

49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 357, 85 Atl. 600; Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y. 440; Lewis v. Gollner, 129 N. Y. 227, 26 Am. St. Rep. 516, 29 N. E. 81.

7. Weil v. Hill, 193 Ala. 407, 69 So. 438; Watrous v. Allen, 57 Mich. 362, 58 Am. Rep. 363, 24 N. W. 104; Hopkins v. Smith, 162 Mass. 444, 38 N. E. 1122; Wilson v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 188 Mass. 565, 75 N. E. 128; Hayes v. Waverly & P. R. Co., 51 N. J. Eq. 345, 27 Atl. 648; Ball v. Milliken, 31 R. I. 36, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 623, 76 Atl. 789; Clark v. Martin, 49 Pa. 289; Duester v. Alvin, 74 Ore. 544, 145 Pac. 660.

7a. Gerling v. Lain, 269 111. 337, 109 N. E. 972; Brandenburg v. Lager, 272 111. 622, 112 N. E. 821; Van Duyn v. H. S. Chase & Co., 149 Iowa, 222, 128 N. W. 300; Melson v. Ormsby, 169 Iowa, 522, 151 N. W. 817; Casterton v. Plotkin, 188 Mich. 333, 154 N. W. 151; Godley v. Weisman, 133

Minn. 1, L. R. A. 1917A, 333, 157 N. W. 711, 158 N. W. 333; Scharer v. Pantler, 127 Mo. App. 433, 105 S. W. 668; Fortesque v. Carroll. 76 N. J. Eq. 583, 75 Atl. 923; Goater v. Ely, 80 N. J. Eq. 40, 82 Atl. 611; Hunt v. Held, - Ohio -, 107 N. E. 765; Mccloskey v. Kirk, 243 Pa. 319, 90 Atl. 73.

7b. Hartman v. Wells, 257 111. 167, 100 N. E. 500; Morrow v. Hasselman, 69 N. J. Eq. 612, 61 Atl. 369; Supplee v. Cohen, 80 N. J. Eq. 83, 83 Atl. 373; Spilling v. Hutcheson, 111 Va. 179, 68 S. E. 250. See Doherty v. Allman, 3 App. Cas. at p. 720, per Lord Cairns.

7c. Barton v. Slifer, 72 N. J. Eq. 812, 66 Atl. 899; Smith v. Spencer, 81 N. J. Eq. 389, 87 Atl. 158; Forsee v. Jackson, 192 Mo. App. 408, 182 S. W. 783.

7d. Hartman v. Wells, 257 111. 167, 100 N. E. 500; Codman v. Bradley, 201 Mass. 361, 87 N. E. 591; Stewart v. Finkelstone, 206 Mass. 28, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 634,

It has been decided in one state that a covenant restrictive of the use of land constitutes a property light in the land restricted, so as to entitle the beneficiaries under the covenant to compensation if such land is devoted to a public use which involves a vio lation of the covenant,8 and in another state the interest of one entitled to enforce such a covenant has been regarded as a right of which he cannot be deprived by legislation without compensation.9 Elsewhere, however, such a covenant has been regarded as a nullity as against the state or a state agency seeking to utilize the land for a public or quasi public purpose, with the result that a neighboring property owner cannot assert any claim for damages in such case, though the public use is of a character which is in terms excluded by the covenant.9a