...consideration of the assignee being allowed to escape from the liability which he had himself undertaken. "That the 'question does not depend upon whether the covenant runs with the laud, is evident from this, that if there was a mere agreement and no covenant, this court would enforce...

...of which he purchased" — of course the price will be affected by the covenant. And again he says, "That the question does not depend upon whether the covenant runs with tlie land is found from this, that if there was a mere agreement and no covenant the Court would enforce...

...from the liability which he had himself undertaken. That the question does not depend upon \vhether the covenant runs with the land, is evident from this,...purchasing with notice of that equity can stand in a different situation from the party from whom he purchased. There are not only cases before the Vice-Chancellor...

...consideration of the assignee being allowed to escape from the liability which he had himself undertaken. That the question does not depend upon whether the...against a party purchasing with notice of it; for if en equity is attached to the property by the owner. no one purchasing with notice of that equity can...

...while the original grantee of the deed was bound by it his grantees would not be. The decision of this question does not depend upon whether the covenant runs with the land. In the leading case of Tulk v. Moxhay, 2 Phil1. Ch. 774, this question is discussed at length. It was...

...vendor, and with notice of which 'he purchased ;" which he answers at once in the negative, saying : " If an equity is attached to the property by the owner,...purchasing with notice of that equity can stand in a different situation from the party from whom he purchased " This was followed by Vice-Chancellor...

...consideration of the assignee being allowed to escape from the liability which he had himself undertaken. That the question does not depend upon whether the...with the land is evident from this, that, if there were a mere agreement and no covenant, this court would enforce it against a party purchasing with...

...vendor, and with notice of which he purchased." The principle there involved was simply: "If an equity attached to the property by the owner, no one purchasing with notice of that equity can stand in a different situation from the party from whom he purchased." — For this rule see Patching vs. Dobbins,...

...the servitude, do not regard the covenant which originally created it as running with the land ; " that the question does not depend upon whether the...purchasing, with notice of that equity, can stand in a different situation from the party from whom he purchased." Another fact which appeared upon the...

...his vendor, and with notice of which he purchased. If there was a mere agreement and no covenant, the court would enforce it against a party purchasing with notice of it. With respect to the observations of Lord Brougham in Keppell v. Bailey, he never could have meant to...