The benefit of a covenant for title until breach runs with the land52 Upon breach, the covenant is changed into a mere personal right of action, to be enforced by the person entitled to the benefit of the covenant at the time of the breach, or, in case of his death, his personal representative, and not passing with the land to his heir, or to his grantee, unless there is an express assignment of the right of action.53

Since covenants for quiet enjoyment and of warranty are not broken until an interference with the use and enjoyment occurs, such a covenant may be enforced by any person to whom, after the making of the covenant and before such interference, the land may have passed, whether a grantee of the covenantee, his heir, or his devisee,54 while one to whom the land passes after such interference has no right of action by reason

S. W. 421; Eaton v. Lyman, 26 Wis. 61, 7 Am. Rep. 39.

52. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 205.

53. Lewis v. Ridge, Cro. Eliz. 863; Lucy v. Levington, 2 Lev. 26; Peters v. Bowman, 98 U. S. 56, 25 L. Ed. 91; Pinckard v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 143 Ala. 568, 39 So. 350; Davis v. Lyman, 6 Conn. 249; Ladd v. Noyes, 137 Mass. 151; Davidson v. Cox, 10 Neb. 150 4 N. W. 1035; Adams v. Conover, 87 N. Y. 422; Geiszler v. De Graaf, 166 N. Y. 339, 82 Am. St. Rep. 659, 59 N. E. 993; Wesco v. Kern, 36 Ore. 433, 59 Pac. 548, 60 Pac. 563; Provident Life & Trust Co. v. Fiss, 147 Pa. St. 232, 23 Atl. 500; Clement v Bank of Rutland, 61 Vt. 298, 4 L. R. A. 425, 17 Atl. 717; Mc-conaughey v. Bennett's Ex'rs, 50 W. Va. 172, 40 S. E. 540.

54. Deason v. Findley, 145 Ala.

407, 40 So. 220: Gibbons v. Moore, 98 Ark. 501. 136 S. W. 937; Red wine v. Brown, 10 Ga. 311; Claycomb v. Munger, 51 111. 373; Pence v. Rbonemus, 58 Ind. App. 268, 108 N. E. 129; Wyman v. Ballard, 12 Mass. 304; Libby v. Hutchinson, 72 N. H. 190, 55 Atl. 547; Suydam v. Jones, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 180, 25 Am. Dec. 552; Keyes & Marshall Bros. Realty Co. v. Trustees of Canton Christian College, 205 N. Y. 593, 98 N. E. 1105; King v. Kerr's Adm'rs, 5 Ohio, 154, 22 Am. Dec. 777; Arnold v. Joines, 50 Okla. 4, 150 Pac. 130; Lawrence v. Senter, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 52; Til-lotson v. Prichard, 60 Vt. 94, 6 Am. St. Rep. 95; Mcconaughey v. Bennett's Ex'rs, 50 W. Va. 172, 40 S. E. 540; Patterson v. Cappon, 125 Wis. 198, 102 N. W. 1083; Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 213 et seq.

The covenants of seisin and of right to convey,59

55. Gulf Coal & Coke Co. v. Musgrove, 195 Ala. 219, 70 So. 179; De Long v. Spring Lake Beach Imp. Co., 74 N. J. L. 250, 66 Atl. 591; Thompson v. Richmond, 102 Me. 335, 66 Atl. 649; Smith v. Richards, 155 Mass. 79, 28 N. E. 1132; Moore v. Merrill, 17 N. H. 75, 43 Am. Dec. 593.

56. Wilson v. Widenham, 51 Me. 566; Slater v. Rawson, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 450, 6 Id. 439; Allen v. Kennedy, 91 Mo. 324, 2 S. W. 142; Iowa Loan & Trust Co. v. Fullen, 114 Mo. App. 633, 91 S. W. 58; Mygatt v. Coe, 152 N. Y. 457, 46 N. E. 949, 57 Am. St. Rep. 521; Bull v. Beiseker, 16 N. Dak. 290, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514, 113 N. W. 870; H. T. & C. Co. v. Whitehouse, 47 Utah, 323, 154 Pac. 950; Dickinson v. Hoomes, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 353, 399; Mcdonald v. Rothgeb, 112 Va. 749, 72 S. E. 692; Wallace v. Pere-les, 109 Wis. 316, 53 L. R. A. 644, 83 Am. St. Rep. 898, 85 N. W. 371. See Solberg v. Robinson, 34 S. Dak. 55, 147 N. W. 87.

57. Wead v. Larkin, 54 111.

489, 5 Am. Rep. 149; Tillotson v. Prichard, 60 Vt. 94, 6 Am. St. Rep. 95, 14 Atl. 302.

58. The idea, though not so expressed by the courts, appears to be closely analogous to that of the tortious fee acquired by a disseisor. See ante, Sec. 15.

59. Prestwood v. Mcgowin, 128 Ala. 267, 86 Am. St. Rep. 136; kawrenoe v. Montgomery, 37 Cal. 188; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 498; Bethell v. Bethell, 54 Ind. 428, 23 Am. Rep. 650; Thompson v. Richmond, 102 Me. 335, 66 Atl. 649; Sears v. Broady, 66 Neb. 207, 92 N. W. 214; Chapman v. Holmes' Ex'rs, 10 N. J. L. 20; Greenby v. Wilcocks, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 1, 3 Am. Dec. 379; Mygatt v. Coe, 124 N. Y. 212, 11 L. R. A. 646, 26 N. E. 611; Eames v. Armstrong, 142 N. Car. 506, 55 S. E. 405; Brady v. Bank of Commerce of Coweta, 41 Okla. 473, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1019, 138 Pac. 1020; Solberg v. Robinson, 34 S. Dak. 55, 147 N. W. 87; Clement v. Bank of Rutland, 61 Vt. 298, 4 L. R. A. 425, 17 Atl. 717.

And also the covenant against incumbrances,60 have, in the majority of the states, been regarded as not running with the land, the theory being that they involve stipulations that a certain state of things exists at the time of the conveyance, and that the nonexistence thereof involves an immediate breach. In some states, however, a different view has been adopted as to these covenants,61 it being considered that,'even though a technical breach be regarded as occurring at the time of the conveyance, this does not prevent the covenant from running until a breach occurs which involves substantial damage, and this view, which accords in result with that adopted in England,62 has been favored by the text hook writers, as conducing to the efficiency of the covenants and presumably harmonizing with the purpose of their introduction, that of affording indemnity to persons claiming under the covenantee as well as to the covenantee himself.63 In some states a similar result has been attained on the theory that the right of action for the breach which immediately occurs is transferred by the covenantee's subsequent conveyance, unless a contrary intention appears, so as to enable the transferee to bring suit on the covenant, either in his own name,64 or in that of the covenantee.65 Occasionally a statute specifically provides for the running of such covenants.66

60. Turner v. Lawson, 144 Ala. 432, 39 So. 755; Logan v. Moulder, 1 Ark. 313, 33 Am. Dec. 338; Mcpike v. Heaton, 131 Cal. 109, 82 Am. St. Rep. 335; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 498; Thompson v. Richmond, 102 Me. 335, 66 Atl. 649; Clark v. Swift, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 390; Simonds v. Diamond Match Co., 159 Mich. 241, 123 N. W. 1132; Blondeau v. Sheridan, 81 Mo. 545; Bryant v. Mosher, 96 Neb. 555, 148 N. W. 329: Moore v. Merrill, 17 N. H. 75. 43 Am. Dec. 593; Carter v. Denman's Ex'rs, 23 N. J. L. 260; Marbury v. Thornton, 82 Va. 702, 1 S. E. 909.

61. Covenants of seisin and right to convey. Martin v. Baker, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 232; De-hority v. Wright, 101 Ind. 382; Schofield v. Iowa Homestead Co., 32 Iowa, 318, 7 Am. Rep. 197;

Sturgis v. Slocum, 140 Iowa, 25, 116 N. W. 128; Devore v. Sunderland, 17 Ohio, 52, 49 Am. Dec. 442; Mecklem v. Blake, 22 Wis. 495; Covenants against incumbrances. Richard v. Bent, 59 111. 38, 14 Am. Rep. 1; Hunt v. Marsh, 80 Mo. 396; Foote v. Burnet, 10 Ohio, 317; Cole v. Kimball. 52 Vt. 639; In re Hamlin's Estate, 133 Wis. 140, 113 N. W. 411. See Post v. Compau, 42 Mich. 90.

62. Kingdon v. Nottle, 1 Maule & S. 355; King v. Jones, 5 Taunt. 418, Kingdon v. Nottle, 4 Maule & S. 53.

63. See Rawle, Covenants, Sec.Sec. 208, 212; 1 Smith's Leading Cases, Amer. notes, p. 221; 4 Kent, Comm. 472; editorial note 15 Harv. Law Rev. 150. Compare note 6 Mich. Law Rev. 254.

A covenant for further assurance is not regarded as broken until damage has been caused by refusal to furnish the assurance, and there is consequently a right of action on such covenant in favor of one to whom the land passes before such refusal.67

The right of a remote grantee to sue upon a covenant of title as running with the land is not affected by the fact that he also has a right of action on a covenant made directly with himself by his immediate grantor.68

In order to avoid the possibility of two or more judgments against the covenantor on account of the same breach in favor of successive owners of the land, the rule has been laid down and generally adopted that neither the covenantee nor a subsequent owner, after parting with the land, can recover on the covenant until he has himself been compelled to pay damages on his own covenant, in favor of one claiming under him, this being regarded as tantamount to an eviction.69

64. Tucker v. Mcarthur. 103 Ga. 409, 30 S. E. 283: Security Bank of Minnesota v. Holmes, 65 Minn. 531, 60 Am. St. Rep. 495, 68 N. W. 113; Kimball v. Bryant, 25 Minn. 496; Coleman v. Lucksinger, 224 Mo. 1, 123 S. W. 441; Geiszler v. De Graaf, 166 N. Y. 339, 82 Am. St. Rep. 659, 59 N. E. 993; Hall v. Paine, 14 Ohio St. 417. See Arnold v. Joines, 50 Okla. 4, 150 Pac. 130.

65. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 226. See Peters v. Bowman, 98 U. S. 59, 25 L. Ed. 91; Newman v. Sevier, 134 111. App. 544; Cole v. Kimball, 52 Vt. 643. As to a suit on a covenant against incumbrances in the name of the assignor, and the difficulties of pleading therein, see Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 227.

66. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 211.

67. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 230; Bennett v. Waller, 23 111. 97; Collier v. Gamble, 10 Mo. 467; Colby v. Osgood, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 339.

68. Withy v. Mumford, 5 Cow. (N. W.) 137, 607; Markland v. Crump, 18 N. C. 101, 27 Am. Dec. 101, 27 Am. Dec. 230; Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 215.

The covenantee or other owner of the land cannot, unless in special cases, after having conveyed the land, release the covenant, so as to affect the right of his grantee to sue thereon,70 and it has been suggested that such a release by the covenantee, even though made by him while owner of the land, does not affect the right of action in favor of a subsequent transferee of the land who takes without notice, actual or constructive, of the release.71