upr000093 196

X. ors have criticized this attempt of the Re­statement to place greater obstacles in the way of the running of the burden than are required for the running of the benefit. On­ly two questionable cases can be cited in support of this distinction between the run­ning of the benefit and of the burden on the requirement of privity, while in several cas­es the court has expressly denied the right of the assignee of the covenantee to sue the o— riginal covenantor because of lack of privity of estate between the covenantor and covenan­tee, which prevented the benefit from rubbing to the covenantee's assignee.” In view of the foregoing authorities I think it will be neeessary for us to accede to the position taken by Mr. Powell that the covenant must be contained in the deed from the Railroad to the Water Company instead of the Railroad's joining in a deed from the Water Company to the District and in such deed covenanting not to drill wells upon Rail­road land. Another problem Involved is the problem of whether the Railroad may be liable for a breach of the covenant after 'if has conveyed the lands burdened with the covenant, Mr, Powell concedes there are cases on both sides of this ques­tion, but he believes that if the covenant is properly drawn, the covenantor should be relieved of liability after it has conveyed its land* In spite of the rather strong statement hereinafter noted by one of the text writers, most of the cases which I have seen support his view. In | Tiffany leal Property, page 447, It is saidi 5.