upr000093 197

f H "The fast 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 ease of landlord and tenant. In several eases, however, the covenantor has been re-- garded 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 pre- sumablerintentlon 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 H7W7~94l, 14 B.R.A. (N.S.) 185, 15 Ann.Cas. 54* New Mexico. Bolles v. Pecos Irrigation Co., 5JTT.II..32, 167 Pac. 280. New York, Clark v, Devoe, 124 N.Y.120, 26 H.8TS757.21 Am. St. Rep. 852. Ohio. Hickey v. Bake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., STUhlo St. 40, 36 N. E. 672, 23 L.R.A. 396, 46 Am. St. Rep, 545. Pennsylvania, Carr v. Lowry’s Adm’r* 27 Pa, St..257; 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 follows1 "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 6