Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-391-Privity-of-estate.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:02:19+00:00

Document:
14a. Post, Sec. 395, note 17.
15. See ante, Sec. 54(d).
124 N. Y. 120, 21 Am. St. Rep. 652, 26 N. E. 275; Bolles v. Pecos Irrig. Co., - N. Mex. - , 167 Pac. 280.
16a. See cases cited post, Sec. 393, note 76.
Hurd v. Curtis, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 459; Morse v. Aldrich, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 449; Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 118 Mass. 156, 11 Am. Rep. 254; Sharp v. Cheatham, 88 Mo. 498; Wheeler v Schad, 7 Nev. 204; Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; Nye v. Hoyle, 120 N. Y. 195, 24 N. E. 1; Easter v. Little Miami R. Co., 14 Ohio St. 48. Town of Middletown v. Newport Hospital, 16 R. I. 319, 15 Atl. 800; Hurxthal v. St. Lawrence etc., Co., 53 W. Va. 87, 97 Am. St. Rep. 954, 44 S. E. 520.
115 N. Y. 410, 5 L. R. A. 417, 22 N. E. 174; Louisville & N. R Co v Webster, 106 Tenn. 586, 61 S. W. 1018.
19. Post, this section, note 2820. Fitch v. Johnson, 104 111. Ill; Scott v. Burton, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 324; Crawford v. Witherbee, 77 Wis. 419, 9 L. R. A. 561, 46 N. W. 545; Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 11 Am. Rep. 335; Haz-lett v. Sinclair, 76 Ind. 488, 40 Am. Rep. 254; Easter v. Little Miami R. Co., 14 Ohio St. 48,- the last three cases, however, involving covenants by the grantor to fence, which might be regarded as involving the grant of an easement. See ante, Sec. 357.
The exact basis of this requirement that the parties to the covenant stand in the relation of grantor and grantee in order that the covenant may run, does not clearly appear .22a As before indicated, by some authorities, such a requirement exists in order that even the benefit of a covenant may run.23 In the case of a covenant in a lease, the running of the covenant is ordinarily, as we have before seen, closely associated with the existence of a privity of estate between the interested parties,24 and this may have last conveyed. See Brewer v. Marshall, 18 N. J. Eq. 337, 19 N. J. Eq. 537; Waterbury v. Head, 12 N. Y. St. Rep. 361; Clark v. Devoe, 124 N. Y. 120, 21 Am. St. Rep. 652, 26 N. E. 275, as explained in Dexter v. Beard, 130 N Y. 549, 29 N. E. 983.
Cal. 476, with which, however, Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Rowell, 80 Cal. 114, 13 Am. St. Rep. 112, 22 Pac. 53, does not appear to be in accord.
22a. See a suggestive editorial note in 15 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 55.
23 See ante, Sec. 389, note 11.
25. In Hurd v. Curtis, 19 Pick. 459, in which the necessity of such privity is asserted in reference to a covenant by a fee simple owner, not in a lease, the court refers to Webb v. Russell, 3 Term. Rep. 402, which involved a covenant in a lease.
26. Co. Litt. 271a, 272b, 273, 352a, 385a. In Whittingham's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 84, it is said "there are three manner of privities, soil, privity in blood, privity in estate, and privity in law. * * * Privities in estate are, as joint tenants, husband and wife, donor and donee, lessor and lessee."
27. See the opinion of Holmes, C. J., in Norcross v. James, 140 Mass. 188, 2 N. E. 946, and Holmes, "The Common Law," 395-400.
28. Post, this section, note 30.
- Grant of easement. The requirement of privity of estate is satisfied if the covenant accompanies a grant by the owner of land of a mere easement therein, he retaining the land.30 Accordingly, it has been held that the burden of a covenant made upon the grant of a water privilege,31 or upon the grant of a railroad must impose such a burden on the land of the covenantor as to be in substance, or to carry with it. a grant of an easement or quasi easement, or must be in aid of such a grant." This statement accords with the view of the subject elsewhere presented by this learned jurist, (see "The Common Law," at p. 388 et seq.), but does not accord with the ordinary judicial view. With this statement may be compared a statement emanating from the same court at a much earlier period. "The stipulations in the indenture cannot be construed as grants and covenants at the same time. If they were grants, then an action of covenant is not the proper remedy for the violation of them; and if covenants, the assignee is not bound for want of privity of estate between the parties." Per Wilde, J., in Hurd v. Curtis, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 459.
29a. In Morse v. Aldrich, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 449, above cited, in which the running of a covenant created in connection with the grant of an easement, was apparently first recognized, the decision appears to be based on the analogy of a lease, it being said that "privity exists between the grantor and grantee, where a grant is made of any subordinate interest in land; the reversion or residue of the estate being reserved by the grantor, all covenants in support of the grant or in relation to the beneficial enjoyment of it, are real covenants and will bind the assignee."
30. Gilmer v. Mobile & M. Ry. Co. 79 Ala. 569; Sterling Hydraulic Co. v. Williams, 66 111. 393; Fitch v. Johnson, 104 111. 1ll; Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 156, 11 Am. Rep. 335; Lincoln v. Bur-rage, 177 Mass. 378, 52 L. R. A. 110, 59 N. E. 67; Crawford v. Witherbee, 77 Wis. 419, 9 L. R. A. 561, 46 N. W. 545. A covenant created in connection with an casement was held to run, even though not entered into till after the grant of the easement. Morse v. Aldrich, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 449. Contra, Smith v. Kelley, 56 Me. 64; Wheeler v. Schad, 7 Nev. 204. -04.
31. Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. New Hampshire Real Estate Co., 40 Colo. 467, 92 Pac. 290 (semble); Fitch v. Johnson, 104 111. 111. Nye v.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.