We have already seen that covenants are occasionally entered into as well by the purchaser with the vendor, as by the vendor with the purchaser; and that such covenants will, in Equity, bind a purchaser who accepts the benefit of a conveyance, although he do not execute it (w).

Covenants entered into by purchasers are of three descriptions; first, such as relate to interests possessed or acquired by the covenantee in the purchased land, independently of the covenant; e. g., a covenant to pay a rent-charge issuing out of the land, or to maintain a road over it; secondly, such as are not connected with any such interests in the purchased land, but which restrict or limit its mode of enjoyment by the purchaser and his representatives; e. g., a covenant that the land shall not be built upon, or shall be built on only in a particular manner; and thirdly, covenants relating to the production and custody of the title deeds (x).

Purchaser's covenants, how classified.

(u) See sects. 127, 128, and 129.

(v) London and Greenwich Rail.455, V.C.E

(w) Vide supra, pp. 265, 266.

As respects the first class of covenants, it appears to be not perfectly clear (y) whether the vendor or his representatives could enforce them as against an alienee of the land, even although the alienee have the estate of the original covenantor; and where this is not the where in a conveyance to A. in fee, to such uses as B. shall appoint, and in default of appointment to the use of B. in fee, B. covenants with the vendor for payment of rent, and then conveys to C. in exercise of the power of appointment, - no action will lie against the alienee upon the covenant (z).

As respects covenants of the second class, it appears to be extremely doubtful (a) whether they could, at Law, be enforced against an alienee, although the assigns be expressly named in the covenant (b): it has even been doubted (c) whether an alienee with notice can be affected in Equity by a covenant which would not bind him at Law; but the contrary doctrine seems to be warranted by the earlier authorities, and has been acted upon in several recent cases (d).

Whether first class run with the laud.

Second class do not, sem-ble; but may be enforced in Equity against alienee with notice.

(x) See Third Report of Real Property Commissioners.

(y) Ibid. p. 53; but see Sug. 730, where it is held that the action will lie.

(z) Roach v. Wadham, 6 East, 289; and see Sug. 731, and further on the subject of privity of estate, infra, p. 364.

(a) See Third Report of Real Prop. Com.; 2 Myl. & K. 545; and Ex parte Ralph, 1 De G. 219.

(b) Sed aliter in the case of a demise; Spencer's case, 5 Rep. 16; it has been recently decided that a covenant by a lessor to build a house on the demised land, or to indemnify the lessee against specified liabilities, will not, at Law, bind the assignees of the reversion, if not expressly named: Doughty v. Bowman, (in error,) Exch. Ch., affirming the judgment of the Q. B., 11 Q. B. 444, nor, semble, even if named; see judgment.

(c) Keppell v. Bailey, 2 Myl. & K.517.

(d) Whatman v. Gibson, 9 Sim. 196; Mann v. Stephens, 15 Sim. 377, affirmed on appeal, 379; Tulk not liable on covenant simply collateral.

The equitable remedy is, of course, an injunction to restrain a breach of the covenant; and this will only be granted against an alienee who bought with notice of the covenant; nor will it be granted where no real damage is likely to be sustained, or the circumstances which were contemplated when it was entered into no longer exist: for instance, the Court has refused to enforce specific performance of a covenant against the erection of buildings, where the plaintiff had himself erected buildings whose effect was to destroy those very advantages which it was the object of the covenant to maintain (e).

As to covenants of the third description, viz., relating to title deeds, the right to enforce them at Law against an alienee seems probably (as with covenants of the first kind) to depend upon his having the estate of the original covenantor (f); but an alienee who bought with notice of the covenant would be bound in Equity to produce the deeds (g); and it seems probable that the benefit of such a covenant by a purchaser would at Law run with the land retained by the vendor (h).

And the covenantor and his representatives may be sued upon covenants of any of the above kinds, although they may not bind the alienees of the land (i).

And upon a covenant simply collateral to the land e.g., to pay a sum of money - the assignee is not liable although expressly named (k).

But not in all cases.

Third class -remedies upon.

Covenantor and his representatives liable on covenants in gross.

Assignee v. Moxhay, 11 Beav. 571; 2 Ph. 774; and see Hemingway v. Fer-nandes, 13 Sim. 228; Bristow v. Wood, 1 Coll. 480; see also Schrei-ber v. Creed, 10 Sim. 9; and see Sug. 742.

(e) Duke of Bedford v. Trustees of British Museum, 2 Myl. & K. 552.

(f) As to which, vide infra, p. 364, and see Sug. 481 and 483, and the remarks on Barclay v. Raine,

1 Sim. & Stu. 449; and see 9 Jarm. Conv. 98, 356.

(g) See Sug. 474; and as to the general equitable right to production, independently of any covenant, vide supra, p. 202, et seq.

(h) See Mr. Jarman's note, 9 Jarm. Conv. by S. 356 et seq.; and Third Report of Real Prop. Com. 52; but see Sug. 713.

(i) See and consider Stokes v. Russell, 3 Durn. & E. 678.

Under the recent Bankruptcy Act (l), when the assignees of any bankrupt, who is entitled to land, under a conveyance to him in fee, or under an agreement for such a conveyance, subject to any perpetual yearly rent thereby reserved, shall elect to take the land or the benefit of the conveyance or agreement, the bankrupt is not to be liable to pay any rent accruing after the issuing of the fiat or filing of the petition, or to be sued in respect of any subsequent non-observance or non-performance of the conditions, covenants and agreements in the conveyance or agreement; and if the assignees shall decline to take the land or the benefit of the conveyance or agreement he is not to be liable if, within fourteen days after notice of their having so declined, he shall deliver up the conveyance or agreement to the person then entitled to the rent or having so agreed to convey; and if the assignees do not elect on request, any person entitled to the rent or having so conveyed or agreed to convey, or any person claiming under him, may apply to the Court; and the Court may order them to elect, and deliver up such conveyance or agreement, in case they shall decline the same, and the possession of the premises; or may make such other order therein as it shall think fit.