Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000093 182

Image

File
Download upr000093-182.tif (image/tiff; 23.4 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000093-182
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    B ''This same authority argues that this re­quirement of privity of estate between coven­antor and covenantee is both historically un­sound and socially undesirable. His position is that the desirability of real covenants in land utilization is too great to limit their use to cases where a conveyance of land exists between the parties, but should be extended to cases where community landowners, strangers to the title of each other, desire to enter into running covenants. In several cases the courts have criticized this requirement of privity be­tween the contracting parties, but only two jur isdictions can be said to have abolished the re quirement in actions at law as distinguished from proceedings in equity. However, in both of these cases the covenants were between ad­jacent riparian owners on a stream and relat­ed to the flow of the stream water. It can be said that since each had a natural right in the flow of this stream, the$r had a mutual relation ship in the subject matter of the covenant, and therefore had the same type of mutual privity of estate with each other that exists between tenants in common. No case has been found up­holding the running of a covenant between own­ers in fee where there was neither privity of estate in the usual sense nor a mutual rela­tionship toward the subject matter of the cov­enant such as exists between riparian landown­ers or tenants in common. "The Restatement of Property recognizes this requirement of privity of estate between the covenantor and covenantee, but has taken the position that it applies only to the run­ning of the burden but not to the running of the benefit. In other words, if privity be­tween the contracting parties is present,then both the benefit and burden may run, but if privity is absent only the benefit can run. This distinction is said to be based upon the. extensive development of the law of third-par­ty beneficiary contracts, which permits the en­forcement of the benefit of a covenant by the assignee of the covenantee, notwithstanding the fact that the covenant fails to comply with the requirements necessary to establish a real covenant as to the burden. Several commentat- 4.