upr000093 202

V either can be released by the owner® of all of the proper­ty benefited. There appears to be no reason why the owner of the benefited land should not be able to release his rights as against his subsequent grantees. On discharge of covenants running with the land Vol, 2, American I*aw of Property, page 399, in Section 9.23 statest "# 9.23.—Subsequent Discharge. Since a covenant running with the land is a contractu­al obligation, there must be both a covenantor and covenantee. Therefore, if by succeeding to the interests in two tracts of land both the benefit and burden become vested in one person, the covenant ceases to exist under the doctrine of merger. Furthermore, it is not subsequently revived by a later severance of ownership of the benefited land from the burdened land. Where the unity of ownership is only partial, either as to a geographical area of the benefited or burdened land or as to a portion of the interests involved, the covenant remains in force as to the area or interest not merged. MAny owner of the benefited land has the power during the period of his ownership to ex­tinguish the benefit in respect to his land by executing a release to the burdened landowner. Such a release will extinguish the covenant on­ly in respect to the estate of the releasor1and where a covenant *touches and concerns' several tracts of land so that the benefit attaches to other lots, the release by one lot owner can ex­tinguish the benefit only as to his lot and In no way affects the rights of other owners of bene­fited lots. In the absence of a statute abrogat­ing the requirement of a seal, the release must be in writing and under seal. “Since a covenant running with the land is a contractual obligation, it may be modified by a new contract made between the parties to the cov­enant. In order for the new contract to operate 11