Sullivan republican. [volume] (Laporte, Pa.) 1883-1896, 1893-03-17
Following In Judge sittser's Opin>
ion I'm the Snider T. PeteFmaD's
License Case.

lAAC0WU0 O0OCs
Application of Snider s. In @. s. ofsSul-
esss5msn hs1dmsa.' for License at ''v.a County.
The objection to this license is
that there is covenant against using
the land for the purpose of selling
liquor found in the title under which
The applicants claim.
The land upon which the building
stands proposed to be kept as
tavern, at one time was the property
of B. Harvey Welch. He conveyed
it by deed to Milton w. Botsford
lst March 1889. 1t contains this
language-"The party of the second
part doth hereby agree not to sell or
cause to be sold ON the premises any
spurious vinous or malt liquor"
The applicants claim under Bots
ford through John Watson.
II this covenant in the deed runs
with the land and binds the appli-
cants we will not assist them to
violate their obligations by granting
them l;cense-In Smiths l.. Gases
1. P. 1S2-149 it is said. @The law
in Pennsylvania, with regard to
covenants capable under any cir
cumstances Of running with the
land and made by tenants in fee may
therefore be stated as follows !:
When the land is granted at the time
of the covenant made, for life, or
years, or in fee, the grant will give
rise to priority of estate ON which an
action will be against subsequent
assignee; but where no estate passes
the covenant will be personal to the
party making it, and collateral to the
land about which it is made, and the
assignee will neither be bound to
perform it nor liable in case of a
breach. And the necessary inference
would seem to be that if the owner
of land, covenant with a stranger, to
pay rent to build or not to erect build
ings, the assignee of the land will
not be bound by the covenant; but
that if such covenant be made by
a grantee in fee and the land subse.
quently conveyed by him to a third
person, the latter will be liable in an
action of covenant founded on
priority Of estate. Hirsh VS.. Rodney
| Wash. G. G. r. 375-Royer VS..
Ake-Herbaugh VS.. Zentmyer 2
Rawle 159 -Weidner VS.. Foster 2 r.
& w. 23-In Irish VS.. Johnson Jones
483, however, a grantor in fee was
said not to be entitled to enforce the
covenants in the deed against an
assignee Of his grantee even in
Pennsylvania, but the reasoning of
the court would seem applicab BILE
rather to those states where the
statute OF Quia Emptores is in force,
than to those where it is not and
the authority of the earlier cases
which Irish VS.. johnson overruled
was subsequently affirmed in Han
men vs.. Ewalt to Harris g." We
have noticed that this covenant
does not in express words purport
to bind the assignees of Botsford.
In some cases this has been held
necessary and in others not.
In Addison ON contracts 9Th Ed.
p 287--8 of appendix it is said.
ga covenant not to carry on particu.
lar trades runs with the land and ex-
tends to the assignees though not
mentioned in the covenant. See
same work Vol Ill p 1874, See
also 2 Rawle 159 and 81 Pa. 512. In
view of these authorities we are
compelled to hold that the covenant
in question runs with she land and
binds the assignees although not
named and we refuse this license.
Rv TtrC (orrpr