upr000093 184

The fact that the burden of a covenant passes to the transferee is not, it would seem, sufficient in itself to relieve the o- riginal covenantor from liability thereon, the same principle being applicable as in the case of landlord and tenant. In several cases, however, the covenantor has been re­garded as immune from liability for viola­tions occurring after he has parted with ti­tle, on a construction of the language to this effect, as being in accord with the pre­sumable:: intent ion of the parties to the cove­nant . It will be noted that the writer of the foregoing state­ment does not cite any cases involving covenants involv­ing transfers in fee to support the first sentence, but does cite the following cases to support the second sen­tence : Iowa. Sexauer v. Wilson, 136 Iowa, 357, 113 N.W. 941, 1.4 L.R.A. (N.S. ) 185, 1.5 Ann.Cas. 54. New Mexico. Bolles v. Pecos Irrigation Co., 23 N.M. 32, 167 Pac. 280. New York. Clark v. Devoe, 124 N.Y.120, 26 N.E. 275, 21 Am. St. Rep. 652. Ohio. Hickey v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 51 Ohio St. 40, If N. E. 672, 23 L.R.A. 396, 46 Am.. St. Rep. 545- Pennsylvania. Carr v. Lowry's Adm'r, 27 Pa. StT 257J Goldberg v. Nicola, 319 Pa. 183, 178 Atl. 809, 98 A.L.R. 774. The rule is stated in .14 Am. Jur., page 517, as follows: "In cases involving other kinds of real cove­nants that run with the land, the question wheth­er a party to a deed is liable for a breach by subsequent grantees of such a covenant depends