That the right to sue upon a covenant relating- to land may pass to a subsequent owner of the land, claiming under the covenantee, by reason merely of the conveyance of the land, is generally conceded.10 Such a covenant is usually

Ann. Cas. 54, 113 N. W. 941; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Kenney, 82 Ky. 154 (semble) ; Poage v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 24 Mo. App. 199; Burbank v. Pillsbury, 48 N. H. 475, 97 Am. Dec. 633; Finley v. Simpson, 22 N. J. L. 311, 53 Am. Dec. 252; Hagerty v. Lee, 54 N. J. L. 580, 20 L. R. A. C31, 25 Atl. 319; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54 N. Y. 35, 13 Am. Rep. 556; Bowen v. Beck, 94 N. Y. 86, 46 Am. Rep. 124; May-nard v. Moore, 76 N. C. 158 (semble) ; Ring v. Mayberry, 168 N. C. 563, 84 S. E. 846; Hickey v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 51 Ohio St. 40, 23 L. R. A. 396, 46 Am. St. Rep. 543, 36 N. E. 72; Doty v. Chattanooga Union Ry. Co, 103 Tenn. 564, 53 S. W. 944. 48 L. R. A. 160, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 436.

5. Piatt, Covenants, 10; Hins dale v. Humphrey, 15 Conn. 431; Stabler v. Cowman, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 284; Western Md. R. Co. v. Orendirff, 37 Md. 335; Newell v. Hill, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 180; Martin v. Drinan, 128 Mass. 515; Kennedy v. Owen, 136 Mass. 199; Maule v. Weaver, 7 Pa. St. 329; First Congregational Meeting House Soc. v. Town of Rochestei, 66 Vt. 501, 29 Atl. 810.

6. Platt, Covenants. 28; Har-tung v. Witte, 59 Wis. 285, 18 N. W. 175; Midgett v. Brooks, 34 X. C. 145, 55 Am. Dec. 405; Taylor v. Preston. 79 Pa. St. 436; Trull v. Eastman, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 121; Electric City Land & Improvement Co. v. West Ridge Coal Co., 187 Pa. St. 500, 41 Atl. 458.

7. Ante, Sec. 79.

8. Ante, Sec. 361.

9. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Rowell, 80 Cal. 114, 13 Am. St. Rep. 112, 22 Pac. 53; Howard Mfg. Co. v. Water Lot Co., 53 Ga. 689; Martin v. Martin, 44 Kan. 195, 24 Pac. 418; Goudy v. Goudy, Wright (Ohio), 410.

10. Pollock, Contracts (Willis-ton's Ed.), 300; Sims, Covenants Running with Land, 136; Fergumade by the grantor or grantee of land as an incident of the conveyance, that is, by one who has some relation to the title. The question has, however, occasionally arisen whether one who is neither a grantor nor grantee of the land may make a covenant with the owner thereof, the benefit of which will pass to a subsequent owner of the land, that is, whether the benefit of a covenant may run, though there is lacking what is ordinarily referred to as "privity of estate" between the covenantor and covenantee. The authorities are about equally divided upon the question.11 Apart, however, from any question of covenants running with the land, the transfer of the land might be construed as intended to pass the right of action for subsequent breaches of the covenant, that son v. Omaha & S. W. R. Co., 227 Fed. 513, 142 C. C. A. 145; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. O'baugh, 49 Ark. 418, 5 S. W. 711; Sterling Hydraulic Co. v. Williams, 66 111. 393; Peden v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 73 Iowa, 328, 5 Am. St. Rep. 680, 35 N. W. 424; Gaines' Adm'x v. Poor, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 503, 79 Am. Dec. 559; Leader v. La Flamme, 111 Me. 242, 88 Atl. 859; Maryland Coal Co. v. Cumberland & Pennsylvania R. Co., 41 Md. 343; National Union Bank at Dover v. Sfgur, 39 N. J. L. 173; Vmtnor Investment Co. v. Record Devel. Co. (N. J. Ch.), 80 Atl. 952; Raby v. Reeves, 112 N. C. 688, 16 S. B. 760; Ford v. Oregon Electric R. Co., 60 Ore. 278, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 358, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 280, 117 Pac. 809.

11. That the benefit will pass with the land in such case, see is, as involving an assignment of a chose in action, within the modern statutes and rules in that regard.11a

Pollock, Contracts (7th Ed.) 237, note; Holmes, The Common Law. 405; 1 Smith's Leading Cases (8th Am. Ed.) at p. 176; Shaber v. St. Paul Water Co., 30 Minn. 179, 14 N. W. 874; Dickinson v. Hoomes' Adm'r, 8 Grat. (Va.) 353 (dictum) ; Gaines' Adm'x v. Poor, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 503, 79 Am. Dec. 559; Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 203, note. The contrary view is taken in Sims, Covenants Running with the Land, 196; Sugden, Vendors (14th Ed.) 584 ct seq.; Mygatt v. Coe, 124 N .Y. 212, 11 L. R. A. 646, 26 N. E. 611, 147 N. Y. 456, 42 N. E. 17; Lyon v. Parker, 45 Me. 474; Hurd v. Curtis, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 459 (dictum) Pack-enham's Case, Y. B. 42 Edw. Hi. 3, pi. 14 (translated in Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 203, note), is cited on both sides of the discussion,- a not unnatural result of the obscurity of the report.