upr000093 187

m lease is expecially applicable to covenants re­stricting the use of the land, and even to af­firmative covenants to perform a physical act upon the land, since the covenantor has no con­trol over the land after his assignment to see that the covenants are performed. Thus, it is doubtful if the parties contemplated the con­tinuing liability of the original covenantor under privity of contract after his assignment. Whether such an implied release of the covenant­or in cases of covenants to pay money is a rea­sonable construction is much more questionable. This construction, releasing the covenantor from continuing liability after assignment, is a nec­essary conclusion in covenants between owners in fee. Most such covenants are for long terms or are unlimited as to time; so that if the' coven­antors were to remain liable after assignment of the burdened land, few owners would be willing to enter into such covenants and run the risk of being held liable- in damages for a breach occur­ring long after they had disposed of their land holdings.11 The cases cited as the recent cases in which it has been held that the liability of the covenantor ceases when he assigns his estate are as follows: Sexauer-v. Wilson, 136 Iowa 357, 113 N.W. 94l (1907); Bolles v. Pecos Irrigation Co., 23 N.M. 32, 167 Pac. 280 (1917)3 Clark v. Devoe, 124 N.Y. 120, 26 N.E. 275 (1891); Hickey v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 51 Ohio St. 40, 36 N.E. 672 (1894); Goldberg v. Nicola, 319 Pa. 183, 178 Atl. 809 (1935). Another problem is whether if the sale to the District fails to go through, the Water Company could re lease the Railroad Company of liability under- a covenant running with the land upon the Railroad property. In con sidering this problem we should consider the problem not 9.