9. Scriver v. Smith. 100 N. Y. 471. 53 Am. Rep. 224; Lamb v Danforth. 59 Me. 322; Isele v. Arlington Five Cent Savings Bank. 135 Mass. 142; Patterson v. Sweet, 3 III. App. 550. But see as to the rule in Maine and Massachusetts, as affected by the flowage acts of those states, Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 83.

10. Ante, Sec. 363(b).

11. Cary v. Daniels, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 466, 41 Am. Dec. 532; Dunklee v. Wilton R. Co.. 24 N. H. 489; Harwood v. Benton, 32 Vt. 724; Bennett v. Booth. 70 W. Va. 264, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 618. 73 S. E. 909; Kutz v. Mc-cune, 22 Wis. 628. 99 Am. Dec. 85. See Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 85. Compare Denman v. Mentz, 63 N. J. Eq. 613, 52 Atl. 1117.

12. Ante, Sec.Sec. 335-347.

13. Prescott v. Williams, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 429. See Corse v. Dexter, 202 Mass. 31, 88 N. E. 332.

14. Ante, Sec.Sec. 351, 352.

15. Huyck v. Andrews, 113 N. Y. 81, 3 L. R. A. 789, 10 Am. St. Rep. 432, 20 N. E. 581; Morgan v. Smith, 11 111. 199. But see Cary v. Daniels, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 466, 41 Am. Dec. 532.

16. Morgan v. Smith, 11 111. 194; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 497.

Upon its use, whether enforceable at law or in equity, is a breach of the covenant against incumbrances,17 as is an obligation upon the owner of the land to maintain a fence.18 A right to take profits from the land is also an incumbrance.19

A public highway has in some cases been regarded as within the covenant,20 though in others a different view has been adopted as to a rural highway, on the theory, either that the existence of the highway, or of the system of which it forms a part, is presumably a benefit to the property, or that it may be presumed to have been known to the purchaser and considered in adjusting the price paid for the land.21 Likewise a railroad right of way has in some cases been regarded as an incumbrance for this purpose,22 and in some cases has not been so regarded.23

17. Fraser v. Bentel, 161 Cal. 390, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1062, 119 Pac. 509; Hatcher v. Andrews, 5 Bush (Ky.) 561; Halle v. New-bold, 69 Md. 265, 14 Atl. 662; Locke v. Hale, 165 Mass. 20, 42 N. E. 331; Foster v. Foster, 62 N. H. 46; Roberts v. Levy, 3 Abb. Pr. Rep. (N. S.) 311; Docter v. Darling, 68 Hun N. Y.) 70; Greene v. Creighton, 7 R. I. 1; Williams v. Hewitt, 57 Wash. 62, 135 Am. St. Rep. 971, 106 Pac. 496. But see Thurgood v. Spring, 139 Cal. 596, 73 Pac. 456.

18. Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 11 Am. Rep. 335; Bur-bank v. Pillsbury, 48 N. H. 475, 97 Am. Dec. 633.

19. Brodie v. New England Mortg. Sec. Co., 166 Ala 170, 51 So. 861; Weiss v. Binman, 178 111. 241 (right to cut ice); Spurr v. Andrew, 6 Allen (Mass.) 420; Stambaugh v. Smith, 23 Ohio St. 584. Kreinbring v. Matthews, 81 Ore. 243, 159 Pac. 75; Cathcart v. Bowman, 5 Pa. St. 317: Gadow v. Hunhaltz, 160 Wis. 293, 151 N. W. 810 (right to cut ice).

20. De Jarnette v. Dreyfus, 166 Ala. 138, 51 So. 932; Hubbard v. Norton, 10 Conn. 423; Burk v. Hill, 48 Ind. 52, 17 Am. Rep. 731; Herrick v. Moore, 19 Me. 313; Kellogg v. Ingerson, 2 Mass. 101; Kellogg v. Malin, 50 Mo. 496, 11 Am. Rep. 426; Butler v. Gale, 27 Vt. 739; Trice v. Kayton, 84 Va. 217, 10 Am. St. Rep. 836, 4 S. E. 377. See in support of such a view, editorial notes 13 Columbia Law Rev. 655, 27 Harv. Law Rev. 386.

21. Des Vergers v. Willis, 56 Ga. 515, 21 Am. Rep. 289; Harrison v. Des Moines & Ft. D. Ry. Co., 91 Iowa 114, 58 N. W. 1081; Sandum v. Johnson, 122 Minn. 368, 48 L. R. A. N. S. 619, 142 N. W. 878; Killen v. Funk, 83 Neb. 622, 131 Am. St. Rep. 658, 120 N. W. 189; Whitbeck v. Cook. 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 483; Huyck v. Andrews, 113 N. Y. 81, 10 Am. St. Rep. 432, 3 L. R. A. 789, 20 N. E. 581; Patterson v. Arthurs, 9 Watts (Pa.) 152; Wilson v. Cochran, 46 Pa. St. 233; Deacons v. Doyle, 75 Va, 258; Barre v.

The existence of a right of dower, whether inchoate or consummate, has been regarded as involving a breach of the covenant,24 as has a lease for years outstanding in a third person.25 Occasionally the fact that by reason of a release, or by legislation of a particular character, the grantee will be unable to recover the normal damages for the making of a

Fleming, 29 W. Va. 314, 325, 1 S. E. 731; Kutz v. Mccune, 22 Wis. 628, 99 Am. Dec. 85.

A like view, that it is not an incumbrance, has been taken as regards a county drainage ditch, Stuhr v. Butterfield, 151 Iowa 736, 36 L. R. A. N. S. 321, 130 N. W. 897, an irrigation ditch authorized by Congress for reclamation of arid land. (Schurger v. Mooreman 20 Idaho 97, 36 L. R. A. N. S. 313, A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1114, 117 Pac. 122. Compare Feldhut v. Brummitt, 96 Kan. 127, 150 Pac. 549). And a public sewer. First Unitarian Society of Iowa City v. Citizens Sav. & Trust Co., 162 Iowa, 389, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 428, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 575, 142 N. W. 87, commented on in editorial notes 13 Columbia Law Rev. 655, 1 Virginia Law Rev. 79.

Such a view has, however, been regarded as not applicable when the public easement was not apparent. Hymes v. Estey, 116 N. Y. 501, 15 Am. St. Rep. 421, 22 N. E. 1087; Howell v. Northampton Railway Co., 211 Pa. 284, 60 Atl. 793. Contra, Sandum v. Johnson, 122 Minn. 368, 48 L. R.

A. N. S. 619, 142 N. W. 878

22. Beach v. Miller, 51 111. 206, 2 Am. Rep. 290; Wadhams v. Swan, 109 111. 46; Quick v. Taylor, 113 Ind. 540, 16 N. E. 588; Barlow v. Mckinley, 24 Iowa 69; Kellogg v. Malin, 50 Mo. 496, 11 Am. Rep. 426; Pritch-ard v. Rebori, 135 Tenn. 328, 186 S. W. 121; Farrington v. Tur-telott (C. C.) 39 Fed. 738.

23. Geren v. Caldarara, 99 Ark. 260, 138 S. W. 335; Van Ness v. Royal Phosphate Co., 60 Fla. 284, 30 L. R. A. N. S. 833, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 647, 53 So. 381; Goodman v. Heilig, 157 N. C. 6, 36 L. R. A. N. S. 1004, 72 S. E. 866.

24. Barnett v. Gaines, 8 Ala. 373; Mccord v. Massey, 155 111. 123, 39 N. E. 592; Porter v. Noyes, 2 Me. 22, 11 Am. Dec. 30; Runnels v. Webber, 59 Me. 488; Bigelow v. Hubbard, 97 Mass. 195; Crowley v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 66 Minn. 400, 69 N. W. 34; Walker's Adm'r v. Deaver, 79 Mo. 664; Russ v. Perry, 49 N. H. 547; Carter v. Denman's Ex'rs, 23 N. J. Law 260; Fishel v. Browning, 145 N. Car. 71, 58 S, E. 759.