Portsmouth etc. R. Co., 51 N. H.

483; Freeman v. Hadley, 32 N. J.

L. 225; Great Falls Waterworks

Co. v. Great Northern Rwy. Co., 21

Mont. 487, 54 Pac. 963; Pratt v.

Ogden, 34 N. Y. 20; Pursell v.

Stover, 110 Pa. 43, 20 Atl. 403;

Merriweather v. Dixon, 28 Tex. 15;

Lockhart v. Geir, 54 Wis. 133, 11

N. W. 245; Winter v. Brockwell,

8 East 308.

83. Brower v. Wakeman, 88

Conn. 8, 89 Atl. 913; Shipley v.

Fink, 102 Md. 219, 62 Atl. 316;

Ingalls v. St. Paul, M. & M. R.

Co., 39 Minn. 479, 12 Am. St. Rep. 476, 40 N. W. 524, Great Falls Waterworks Co. v. Great Northern

R. Co., 21 Mont. 487, 54 Pac. 963; Putnam v. State, 132 N. Y. 344, 30 N. E. 743; Wright v. Brown, 163 Mo. App. 117, 145 S. W. 518; Mellor v. Watkins, L. R. 9 Q. B.

400; Cornish v. Stubbs, L. R. 5 C. P. 334. See Wilson v. Tavener (1901) 1 Ch. 578; Hodgkins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19, 15 Am. St. Rep. 168. 5 L. R. A. 209, 22 N. E. 73.

84. Liggins v. Inge, 7 Bing. 682; Hodgkins v. Faninston, 150 Mass. 19, 15 Am. St. Rep. 168, 58 L. R. A. 209, 22 N. E. 73.

85. Kerrison v. Smith, (1897) 2 Q. B. 445; Mccrea v. Marsh, 12 Gray (Mass.) 211; Goldman v. Beach Front Realty Co., 83 N. J. L. 97, 83 Atl. 777; Pollor-k, Torts. (6th Ed.) 363.

86. Wickham v. Hawker. 7 Mees. & W. 63; Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 C. B. 188; Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375, 27 Am. Dec. 675; Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148. 45 Am. Rep. 19; Dawson v. Western Mrl. R. Co., 107 Md. 70, 14 L. R.

In one case it was held that the benefit of a license, contained in an instrument of lease, enabling the lessor to enter for a certain purpose, passed to his transferee and was enforcible against an assignee of the lessee, the instrument expressly providing that the stipulations should extend to and be binding on the assignees of the respective parties,891 and in another case it was held to pass to the lessor's transferee without any mention of assigns.89b Such a stipulation, in terms giving the lessor a right to enter on the land, if regarded as a contract to the effect that the lessor or his transferee should be allowed to enter, may well pass on

A. (N. S.) 809, 126 Am. St. Rep. 337, 15 Ann. Cas. 678, 68 Atl. 301; Ward v. Rapp, 79 Mich. 469, 44 N. W. 934: Fuhr v. Dean. 26 Mo. 116, 69 Am. Dec. 484; Cowles v. Kidder, 24 N. H. 364. 57 Am. Dec. 287; Blaisdell v. Portsmouth. G. P. & C. R. R., 51 N. H. 483: Mendenhall v. Klinck. 51 N. Y. 246. But St. John v. Sinclair, 108 Minn. 274, 122 N. W. 164 appears to be contra.

86a. Ante, Sec. 349(h), notes 55-60.

87. Bassett v. Maynard, Cro. Eliz. 819; Wickham v. Hawker, 7

Mees. & W. 63; Heflin v. Bingham, 56 Ala. 566, 28 Am. Rep. 776; Ely v. Cavanaugh, 82 Conn. 681. 74 Atl. 1122; Sawyer v. Wilson, 61 Me. 529; Wiseman v. Eastman, 21 Wash. 163, 57 Pac. 398.

88. Ante, Sec. 349(d), notes 44-51.

89. See Russell v. Hubbard. 59 111. 335.

89a. Marks v. Gartside, 16 111. App. 177.

89b. Brewster v. Gracey. 65 Kan. 137, 69 Pac. 199. And see Stebbins v. Demorest, 138 Mich. 297, 101 N. W. 528.

A transfer of the reversion, and be enforcible against an assignee of the leasehold, as a covenant running with the land, so as to justify a recovery of damages for a breach thereof, and presumably a court of equity would in such case regard what is in terms merely a permission to enter as a contract for an easement of entry to endure for the life of the lease, and as such capable of specific enforcement by means of an injunction to prevent any interference with the exercise of the right of entry by the lessee or his assignee.