46. 5 Coke 16, 1 Smith's Leading Cases (11th Ed.) 55.

46a. As to the proper criteria in this regard, see article by Professor Harry A. Bigelow in 12 Mich. Law Rev. 639.

47. Williams v. Earle, L. R. 3 Q. B. 739; Pollard v. Shaaffer, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 210, 1 L. Ed. 104, 1 Am. Dec. 239; Hayes v. New York Gold Min. Co., 2 Colo. 273; Gordon v. George, 12 Ind. 408; Myers v. Burns, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 401, aff'g 35 N. Y. 269; McCardell v. Williams, 19 R. I. 701, 36 Atl. 719; Magoon v. Eastman, 86 Vt. 261, 84 Atl. 869.

48. Bishop v. St. Albans v. Bat-tersby, 3 Q. B. Div. 359; Wert-heimer v. Wayne, Circuit Judge, 83 Mich. 56, 47 N. W. 47; Granite Building Corporation v. Greene, 25

R. I. 586, 57 Atl. 649.

49. Williams v. Earle, L. R. 3 Q. B. 739; McEacharn v. Colton [1902] App. Cas. 104.

See 7 Am. Law Rev. 261; 28 Harv. Law Rev. 712; 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 152i.

50. Williams v. Bosanquet, 1 Brod. & B. 238; Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 223, 5 Pac. 104; Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. 168; Al-lenspach v. Wagner, 9 Colo. 127, 10 Pac. 802; Webster v. Nichols, 104 111. 160; Outtoun v. Dulin, 72 Md. 536, 20 Atl. 134; Fennell v. Guffey, 139 Pa. St. 341, 20 Atl. 1048; State v. Martin, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 92, 52 Am. Rep. 167; Magoon v. Eastman, 86 Vt. 261, 84 Atl. 869.

51. Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 223, 5 Pac. 104; Peck v. ChristR. P. - 12.

Real Property.

[ Sec. 56 peaceably or in good repair,52 to allow the lessor a right of passage through the demised premises,53 to reside on the premises,54 to insure, where the proceeds of the insurance, either by statute or agreement, must be laid out on the land,55 and to grind corn grown on the premises at a mill belonging to the owner of the reversion.56 A covenant by the lessor to renew the lease likewise runs with the land.57 As to covenants of title by the lessor, it has always been held that, until breach, the benefit of the covenant passes to an assignee of the lessee, this being the same rule which applies in the case of such covenants in a conveyance in fee,58 and the burden likewise passes to the transferee of the lessor.59 Among covenants which have been held not to run with the land are covenants to pay a certain sum to a stranger,60 and not to maintain a competing man, 94 111. App. 435; Mason v. Smith, 131 Mass. 510; Commercial Building & Loan Ass'n of Richmond, Virginia v. Robinson, 90 Md. 615, 45 Atl. 449; Wills v. Summers, 45 Minn. 90, 47 N. W. 463; Fontaine v. Schulenberg & Boeckler Lumber Co., 109 Mo. 55, 32 Am. St. Rep. 648, 18 S. W. 1147 (semble); West Virginia Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Mclntire, 44 W. Va. 210, 28 S. E. 696.

52. Morgan v. Hardy, 17 Q. B Div. 770; Coburn v. Goodall, 72 Cal. 498, 1 Am. St. Rep. 75, 14 Pac. 190; Peck v. Christman, 94 111. App. 435; Lehmaier v. Jones, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 495, 91 N. Y. Supp. 687.

53. Cole's Case, 1 Salk. 196.

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

55. Vernon v. Smith, 5 Barn. & Ald. 1; Thomas' Adm'rs v. Von-kapff's Ex'rs, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 372, 381; Masury v. Southworth,

9 Ohio St. 340.

56. Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1 Barn. & C. 410.

57. Muller v. Trafford [1901] 1 Ch. 54; Warner v. Cochrane, 63 C. C. A. 207, 128 Fed. 553; Standard Oil Co. v. Slye, 164 Cal. 435, 129 Pac. 589; Leiter v. Pike, 127 111. 287, 20 N. E. 23, aff'g 26 111. App. 530; Leominster Gaslight Co. v. Hillery, 197 Mass. 267, 83 N. E. 870; Leppla v. Mackey, 31 Minn. 75, 16 N. W. 470; Blount v. Connolly, 110 Mo. App. 603, 85 S. W. 605: Johns v. Winters, 251 Pa. St. 169. 96 Atl. 130.

58. Rawle, Covenants (5th Ed.) Sec. 204. Campbell v. Lewis, 3 Barn. & Ald. 392; Shelton v. Codman (3 Cush.) 57 Mass. 518.

59. Rawle, Covenants (5th Ed.) Sec. 313.

60. Spencer's Case, 5 Coke 16, Dolph v. White. 12 N. Y. 296.

In First Nat. Bank of Albany v. Hazelwood Co., 85 Ore. 403, 166

In England a covenant giving to the lessee an option to purchase the land has been held not to run,62 but in this country a contrary view has obtained.63 In the case of a lease of both land and chattels, a covenant as to the chattels does not run.64

Although the character of the covenant is such that otherwise it would run, it will not do so, it seems, if an intention to the contrary appears.65 But the fact that an intention appears that the covenant shall run will not make it run if it is of such a character as not to touch and concern the land.66

- (c) Character of the transfer. By the English cases, one can be held, as an assignee of the leasehold, on the covenants of the lease, only in case there is a legal assignment to him, the fact that he has acquired

Pac. 955, a covenant, in the lease of a creamery, to keep up the milk routes, was held not to run, while a covenant to run the creamery as an independent creamery was held to run.

61. Thomas v. Hayward L. R. 4 Exch. 311; And see Taylor v. Owen, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 301, 20 Am. Dec. 115; Hebert v. Dupa-ty, 42 La. Ann. 343, 7 So. 580; But Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 136, is contra. And compare post Sec. 392, note 38.

62. Woodall v. Clifton [1905J 2 Ch. 257.

63. Prout v. Roby, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 471, 21 L. E. 58 (semble); Dietz v. Mission Transfer Co., 95 Cal. 92, 30 Pac. 380 (semble); Robinson v. Perry, 21 Ga. 183, 68 Am. Dec. 455: Page v. Hughes (2 B. Mon.) 41 Ky. 445; Peters v. Stone, 193 Mass. 179, 79 N. E. 336; Lazarus v. Heilman,

11 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 93; Hagar v. Buck, 44 Vt. 285, 8 Am. Rep. 368.

64. Spencer's Case, 5 Coke 16; 1 Smith's Leading Cases (11th Ed.) 55; Allen v. Culver, 3 Denlo (N. Y.) 284; Smith v. Kellogg. 46 Vt. 560.

65. Kemp v. Bird, 5 Ch. Div. 549, 974; Myers v. J. J. Stone & Son, 128 Iowa 10, 111 Am. St. Rep. 180, 5 Ann. Cas. 912, 102 N. W. 507; Thruston v. Minke, 32 Md. 487; Masury v. Southworth, 9 Ohio St. 340.

66. Spencer's Case, 5 Coke, 16. Mayor of Congleton v. Pattison, 10 East. 130; Gibson v. Holden, 115 111. 199, 56 Am. Rep. 146, 3 N. E. 282; Conover v. Smith, 17 N. J. Eq. 51, 86 Am. Dec. 247; Wilmurt v. McGrane, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 412, 45 N. Y. Supp. 32; Masury v. Southworth, 9 Ohio St. 340 an equitable interest, as by a contract for the sale of the leasehold, being insufficient for this purpose.67 In two or three jurisdictions in this country, on the other hand, an equitable assignee has been regarded as liable on the covenants68