Court Opinion

ID: 7968836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 00:53:14.390676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:34:43.195276
License: Public Domain

CANTY, J.
(concurring). In my opinion, the covenant .in question does not run with the land at all, in the strict or technical •.sense of that term. If it did, it would make the defendant per*31sonally liable. The benefit of a covenant relating to land will run with the land, but the burden of such a covenant will not, except in cases growing out of leases, as to which the rule was changed by the statute 32 Hen. VIII. c. 34. See notes to Spencer’s Case, 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. (8th Ed.) 150; also, Id. 176, 178. But, where there is no other remedy, equity will often interfere by injunction, or by declaring the burden of the covenant a charge on the land (Id. 232), and it seems to me that this is a case where it should be declared such a charge.