Despite the fact that during the year under consideration the courts have had to deal with run-of-the-mine cases, several interesting problems have been considered. It is the purpose of this article to discuss very briefly those cases which indicate the trend of the law in this field.
Where a vendor conveys land to a purchaser who intends to use the premises for a known purpose and, at the same time, orally agrees not to use adjoining retained land for the same purpose, he creates a restriction on the use of the retained land that equity will enforce against him. or one holding under him with actual notice of the agreement. The principle, has been applied in many cases where the retained land was later conveyed, to one who had notice of the restrictive agreement. There is no good reason why the same doctrine should not be applied in the case where the relation of landlord and tenant is created between the vendor and one who takes as his tenant with notice of the restriction. While the doctrine does not give the purchaser of the land first sold protection against the act of a vendee or tenant who takes the retained land without notice of the agreement, it does make his position secure against the act of the vendor or his tenant who takes with notice. The case is a wholesome extension of the doctrine of equitable restriction and does not involve the doctrine of covenants running with the land at law. Langenback v. Mays.
Barnes, Henry S.
"Landlord and Tenant,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 3:
1, Article 16.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol3/iss1/16