We have, in connection with the discussion of covenants in leases which run with the land,'"' referred to the difficulty, if not impossibility, of framing a rule for the determination of whether a covenant is such as to touch and concern the land so as to run therewith. Ordinarily, however, a covenant is regarded as touching and concerning the land if it is of value to the covenantee by

Hoyle, 120 N. Y. 195, 24 N. E. 1; Morehouse v. Woodruff, 218 N. Y. 494, 113 N. E. 512; Norfleet v. Cromwell, 64 N. C. 1; Noonan v. Orton, 4 Wis. 335; Wooliscroft v. Norton, 15 Wis. 198. But see Miller v. Clary, 210 N. Y. 127, 103 N. E. 1114; Barringer v. Virginia Trust Co., 132 N. C. 409, 43 S. E. 910.

So a covenant which was made in connection with a gas and oil lease, a grant apparently of a profit a prendre, was held to run. Indiana, etc., Oil Co. v. Hinton, 159 Ind. 398, 64 N. E. 224; Har-bert v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 76 W. Va. 207, 84 S. E. 770. And see Munro v. Syracuse, L. & N. R. Co., 200 N. Y. 224, 93 N. E. 516, and comment thereon in 11 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 384.

32. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. O'baugh, 49 Ark. 418, 5 S. W. 711; Dorsey v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co., 58 111. 65; Midland Ry. Co. v. Fisher, 125 Ind.

19, 8 L. R. A. 604, 21 Am. St. Rep. 189, 24 N. E. 756; Peden v. Chicago. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 73 Iowa. 328, 5 Am. St. Rep. 680, 35 N. W. 424; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Kenney, 82 Ky. 154; Ford v. Oregon Elec. R. Co., 60 Ore. 278, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 358, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 243, 117 Pac. 809; Lydick v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 427.

33. Dorsey v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co., 58 111. 65; Fitch v. Johnson, 104 111. 1ll; Midland Ry. Co. v. Fisher, 125 Ind. 19, 8 L R. A. 604, 21 Am. St. Rep. 189, 24 N. E. 756; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Kenney. 82 Ky. 154; Lydick v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 427. So the benefit may pass with a subsequent grant of the water power. Sterling Hydraulic Co. v. Williams, 66 111. 393.

34. Post, Sec. 393.

35. See ante, Sec. 56(b).

Reason of his occupation of the land or by reason of an easement which he has in the land, or if it is a burden on the covenantor by reason of his occupation of the land. It has been held that a covenant to give free transportation to the covenantee,36 or to pay an incumbrance on the land,37 is of such a personal nature as not to run. And the same view has been taken by some courts as to a covenant the purpose of which is to prevent competition in trade.38

Among the covenants which have been most frequently considered as passing with the grant of a fee-simple estate are those to repair a dam or canal,39 and to fence or to repair a fence.40 A covenant to maintain a station41 or to stop trains42 at a particular point has been held to run, as has a covenant to supply water43 or gas44 and to pay taxes.45

36. Morse v. Garner, 1 Strob. (S. C.) 514, 47 Am. Dec. 565; Dickey v. Kansas City & I. R. T. Ry. Co., 122 Mo. 223, 26 S. W. 685; Ruddick v. St. Louis, K. & N. W. Ry. Co., 116 Mo. 25, 22 S. W. 499, 38 Am. St. Rep. 570; Eddy v. Hinnant, 82 Tex. 354, 18 S. W. 562. So, in the case of a covenant by the grantee of an easement to give its transportation business to the grantor, a ferry company, it was held that the covenant would not run, since it did not affect the enjoyment of the easement, or of the land in which the easement was granted, but was purely for the benefit of the owner of the ferry. Wig-kins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 94 111. 83. Compare Munro v. Syracuse, L. S. & N. R. Co., 200 N. Y. 224, 93 N. E. 516.

37. Glenn v. Canby, 24 Md 127; Scholten v. Barber, 217 111.

14S, 75 X. E. 460; Graber v. Duncan, 79 Ind. 565. The same view was taken of a covenant to pay to the covenantee a percentage of the net earnings of mining property, against the transferee of which it was sought to assert the covenant. Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Hinch-man, 212 Fed. 803, 129 C. C. A. 267.

38. Taylor v. Owen, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 301; Kettle River R. Co. v. Eastern Ry. Co. of Minnesota. 41 Minn. 461, 6 L. R. A. Ill, 43 N. W. 469; Sjoblom v. Mark, 103 Minn. 193, 114 N. W. 746; Tardy v. Creasy, 81 Va. 553, 59 Am. Rep. 676; Thomas v. Hay ward, L. R. 4 Exch. 311. Contra, Robbins v. Webb, 68 Ala. 393; National Union Bank at Dover v. Segur, 39 N. J. Law 173; Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 136.

As previously stated,40 a covenant, contained in an instrument of lease, as to a thing not in esse, has been

39. Howard Mfg. Co. v. Water Lot Co., 53 Ga. 689; Sterling Hydraulic Co. v. Williams, 66 111 393; Batavia Mfg Co. v. Newton Wagon Co., 91 111. 230; Maxon v. Lane, 102 Ind. 364, 1 N. E. 796; Fowler v. Kent, 71 N. H. 388, 52 Atl. 554; Nye v. Hoyle, 120 N. Y. 195, 24 N. E. 1; Den-man v. Prince, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 213; Norfleet v. Cromwell, 64 N. C. 1; Carr v. Lowry's Adm'x, 27 Fa. St. 257; Wooliscroft v. Norton, 15 Wis. 198.

40. Dorsey v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co., 58 111. 65; Midland Ry. Co. v. Fisher, 125 Ind. 19, 8 L. R. A. 604, 21 Am. St. Rep. 189, 24 N. E. 756; Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Priest, 131 Ind. 413, 31 N. E. 77; Sexauer v. Wilson, 136 Iowa, 357, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 185, 15 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 54, 113 N. W. 357; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Kenney, 82 Ky. 154; Chicago, M. & G. R. Co. v. Dodds & Johnson, 167 Ky. 624, 181 S. W. 666; Bronson v. Coffin, 188 Mass. 175, 11 Am. Rep. 335, 118 Mass. 156; Countryman v. Deck, 13 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 110; Dey v. Prentice, 90 Hun (N. Y.) 27, 35 N. Y. Supp. 563; Huston v. Cincinnati & Z. R. Co., 21 Ohio St. 236; Hickey v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 51 Ohio St 40, 23 L.

R. A. 396, 46 Am. St. Rep. 545, 36 N. E. 672; Kellogg v. Robinson, 6 Vt. 276, 27 Am. Dec. 550.

41. Georgia Southern Railroad v. Reeves, 64 Ga. 492; Reidsville, & S. E. R Co. v. Baxter, 13 Ga. App. 357, 79 S. E. 187; Louisville, H. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Baskett. - (Ky.) - , 121 S. W. 957; Par-rott v. Atlantic, & N. C. R. R., 165 N. C. 295, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 165, 81 S. E. 348; Carnegie Realty Co. v. Carolina, Clinchfield, & Ohio Ry. Co., 136 Tenn. 300, 189 S. W. 371.

42. Gilmer v. R. Co., 79 Ala. 569; Ford v. Oregon Elec. R. Co., 60 Ore. 278, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 358, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 280, 117 Pac. 809.

43. Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Mckinney, 124 Ga. 929, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 436, 110 Am. St. Rep. 215, 53 S. E. 701; Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. New Hampshire Real Estate Co., 40 Colo. 467, 92 Pac. 290.

44. Indiana Natural Gas Co. v. Hinton, 159 Ind. 398, 64 N. E. 224.

45. Barron v. Whiteside, 89 Md. 448, 43 Atl. 825; West Virginia, C. & P. R. Co. v. Mclntire, 44 W. Va. 210, 28 S. E. 696.

46. Ante, Sec. 56(b). See 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten., p. 892; frequently considered not to run unless "assigns" are mentioned. Occasionally the same rule lias been asserted in connection with such a covenant not contained in an instrument of lease.47

The intention of the parties to the covenant that it shall run with the land is occasionally referred to as a consideration of importance in determining whether it does run,48 but in the great majority of cases no reference is made to this matter, the question whether the covenant runs being regarded as one to be determined by the consideration whether it touches and concerns the land. The correct rule appears to be that the parties to the covenant may, by indicating an intention to that effect, prevent the covenant from running, although it is such that otherwise it would run,49 while if the covenant is one which does not touch and concern the land, the parties cannot make it run by indicating an intention or desire that it shall run.5" Looked at from this point of view, the rule of Spencer's case, that a covenant in reference to a thing not in esse does not run unless assigns are mentioned, in so far editorial note, 15 Mich. Law Rev. at p. 79.

47. Md. & Pa. R. Co., v. Silver, 110 Md. 510, 73 Atl. 297; Whalen v. Baltimore, & 0. R. Co., 108 Md. 11, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 130, 129 Am. St. Rep. 423, 69 Atl. 390; Duester v. Alvin, 74 Ore. 544, 145 Pac. 660; Carnegie Realty Co. v. Carolina, C. & O. Ry. Co., 136 Tenn. 300, 189 S. W. 371. But see Sexauer v. Wilson, 136 Iowa, 357, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 185, 15 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 54, 13 N. W. 941. Purvis v. Shuman, 273 111. 286, 112 N. E. 679. So in Hartung v. Witte, 59 Wis. 285, and Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 72 Tex. 122; Brown v. Southern Pac. Co., 36 Ore. 128, 47 L. R. A. 409, 78 Am. St. Rep. 761, 58 Pac. 1104, It was held that a covenant to build a fence, as concerning a thing not in esse, did not run, in the absence of the word "assigns."

48. Milliken v. Hunter, 180 Ind. 149, 100 N. E. 1041; Sexauer v. Wilson, 136 Iowa, 357, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 185, 15 Ann. Cas. 54, 113 N. W. 357; Brown v. Southern Pac. Co., 36 Ore. 128, 47 L. R. A. 409, 78 Am. St. Rep. 761, 58 Pac. 1104.

49. Maryland Coal Co. v. Cumberland, etc. R. Co., 41 Md. 343; Masury v. Southworth, 9 Ohio St. 348; Wilmurt v. Mcgrane, 16 App. Div. 412, 45 N. Y. Supp. 32.

50. Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 Com. B. 164; Fresno Canal & Irr. Co. v. Dunbar, 80 Cal. 530, 22 Pac. 275. Gibson v. Holden, 115 111. 199, 56 Am. Rep. 149, 3 N. E. 282; Kettle River R. Co. v. Eastern R. Co. of Minnesota, 41 Minn.

As it is adopted in any state,51 may be regarded as involving merely a rule of construction that a covenant of that character is to be regarded as intended to be personal, unless a contrary intention is shown by the mention of assigns.