Cupeu v. Barrows, 1 Gray Gloss.) 379; In re Slingshy. 5 Coke, 181).
General or specific. The former relate to isnd generally and piace the covenantce in the position of a speciaity creditor only; the latter rciate to particular lands and give the covenantee a lien thereon. lrowu. .
Executed or execritory; the former heing such as ielatc to on not already pPl’fl)l'lI)BI‘l: uhile the iattcr are those whose performance is to he future. Siiep. Touch. 1G1.
Afiirmntive or negative; the former being those in which the party binds hiniseif to the existence of a present state of f.\(l'i as represented or to the [utu re performance of some act; viliiie the lutter are those in which the cove- n-intor ohliges himseif -not to do or perfnrni some nct.
Declaratory or obligatory; the former being llIt.I.\‘e ivIuc.h serve to iimit or direct uses; while the litter ore those wl ich nre binding on the pnrtv hirnsi-il. I Sid. ' ; 1 Keh. "7
Real and personal. A real covenant is one which hiiids the iicirs of the c venantor and pnsscs to asslgnees or purch -ea ; a uueiinnt the onligstion of u liich is so connected with the realty that he who has the latter is on titled to the b(‘l.lEI1I or it or is linhlc to 1 it: a covenant which has for its obj.-ii ElUlul.’- thing anucxcd to, or iulicient in, or connected with. innd 01' other reni property, and runs with the land. so that the _§l‘:xIJtel- of the land is in- vest:-d with it and may sue upon it for a l)|'I' uh happening in his time. 4 Kent. Cumin. 470; 2 Bl. Comm. '10-}: Chapman v. Holmes. 10 N. J Low. 20; \ nner v. l\Il(l"l]Pli, 5 Kan. App. .'l ‘.48 File. 4.10; (lil Co. v. Hinton. 159 Ind. 335. 6-1 N. I122-1: Dario v. Lyniziu. ti Conn. 249. In the old hooks. a covenant reai is -aiso dc- lined to be a covenant by which a man binds hiniseif to pass a thing real, as lands or tenc- ments. Terines de in Ley; 3 Bl. Comm. 156: Shep. Touch. 161. A pi>i"~:onai covenant. on the other hand, is one which. instcad of hein-,5 a charge upon real estate of the covenantor, only hinds himself and his personal represcntatives in respect to assets. 4 Kent. Comm. 470; Carter v. Deuman. 23 N. J. Law. '2 : lladlev v. Bernero. M Ma. App. 3] 71 S. W. 45]. The phnisc may also menu a covenant which is personal to the covcnantnr. that is, one which he must perform in person, and cannot procure another person to perform for him.
Transitive or inti-anlitive: the former being these personal covenants the duty of performing which passes over to the rs-presents» lives of the coveuuntor: while the latter are those the duty of pcirurniing which is limited to the cavenantee hinisi-if, and dries not pass over to his representative. Baa. Ahr. Gov.
Disjunetive covenants. Those which are for the performance of one or more of sewrai things at the election of the coicnsnlor or cmcn.-intee, as the case may he. Platt, Cov. 21.
Absolute or conditional. An absolute covenant is one which is not qualified or limited hv any condition.
The following compound and descriptive term: may also he noted:
Continuing covenant. One which indicums or necessarily impiies the diiing of stipu- lured nuts succe ely or as often as the no rusion may requiie; as, a covenant to pay rent by installments. to keep the premises in repair or insured. to cultivate land, etc. Me Glynn v. Moiii-L‘, ;5 Col. 35!}.
Full covenants. As this term is used in American law. it includcs the following: The cm-cunnts for ss-isln, for right to convey, against incunihranc for quiet enjoyment, somntimes for furthcr assurance, and almost z1|w5i'_\s of
uarrnnty, this last often taking the place of the
covenant for quiet enjoyment, and indeed‘ in many states being the only covenant in priiclicai use. Ravile. Cov, for Title, § 21.
Mutual covenants. A niutual covenant is one where either party may recover damages from the other for the injury he may have R- ceiied from a hrearh of the covenants in hl favor. Bailey v. White, 3 A111. 330.
Separate covenant. A sevcriil covenant: one winch binds the several coveninitors each for himself, but not jointiy.
Usual covenants. An agreement on the part of a seller of mini property to give the usual covenants hiiids him to insert in the T: covenants of “sL'sin." " ' ’ urthor assuriince. “geneinl warranty and “against iucumhrzinces." Giv. Code C:il.§ 113 Si-e \\ . Wuod. 17 N. J. Eq 2i 3% HI. Doc. 23 . DF1l(E v Barton. 18 Minn, alfii KM 414). The rosuit of the authorities apiicam OI he that in a c'isc “here the llgTEeLlirlI[ ls sllcm as to the purticulrir covenants to be iii-«ind in the lease, and provides mere-iy for the Ix contiiiiing "usniil covcnants." or. uliich in it; s-mic thin.-2, in an open agreement v..ih..il Int i-efoicnce to the coieuiints, and there MI on spiuiil circumstances justifying: the iulniflw tiou of other covenunts, the fol] wins one do only ones which either party can mum Ioal. namcly: Covenants by the ltssct’ (1) to pay run ('2) to pay taxes. except such as are exp:-ml] payable by the liiuillnrd: to kop iml livcr up the premises in repair; and (4) lo - low the lessor to enter and view the state :7 repair: and the usual qualified coveiiant by lessor for quiet enjoyment by the lunar. 7 Div. 561.
Specific cI1venantn.—Cnvenai;it against incunnliritnoeu. A covenant that there are no incunihiances on the land couvcvcd: a stint)» tion nziiinst all rights [0 or lntcrr--ts in fit land \\ hich may sulisist in third pcr-uis to tho diminution of the value of the cwuv gunned. Bank v. Parisette. 68 Ohio St. - . G7 890: Shearer v. Ranger. 2'? Pick. (dl:|ss.) Sanford v. Wheelan. 12 Or. 301, 7 I"
an 3.4. —Covena.i;it for further nnnumnca. An undert.-iking, in the form of a covenant. on the part of the vendor of real estate to do Sill‘ further acts for the purpose of perfiicting the purch.-iser's title as the latter may rensouiibly reqiiirc. This coicnant is deemed of iznsvt importance. since it relates both to the title of the vendor and to the instrument of conveyance tn the vcndce, and operiitis ns well to sccwre tlll performance of all acts necessary for supnlyln any defcct In the l'ni'nici' as to remove all
jcctions to the siifli iincv and security of ill!‘ latter. Pliitt. Cnv. Rawlc. Cov. §§ 93 99. See Sued. Vcnd 500: Armstrong v. Ilzirhy,‘1I‘. J).—Cnvenant for quiet enjoyment. An . .ur:iuce against the consequences of :i flB- foctive title, and of any disturbances tlioreivnnn, Plntt. (‘ov. 312; Ralvle. Cov. 12"). A covetnfl that the tenant or grantee of an estate slinll enjoy the possession of the premises in DI!) and without ll'lSfllI'l1fiHCP by ‘la clalsmim Popnskcy v. Muninvitz. ns “Fin. .5 ' W " is: Srewii t Mink. 64 Iowa. 84.
I\. “'. 8'12‘. Chestnut v. Tyson. 105 Ala. HQ 16 South. 723, 53 Am St. Rep. 101: C'll|‘|%
v. Pcdi-ii. 10 Kim. .\pp. 471'. 6] PM ‘I —Covenants for title. Covenants usin inserlcd in u c(inVe_V£|n(12 of land, on the put! it the grautor, and binding him for the cumin!- ncss. security, and continuance of the title tun- feri-cd to the grantee. They comprise "mm nants for seisin, for right to convey. usalll incunihrunoes, or quiet enjoyment soiuctiuu M further assurance, and alniosl. slwu_\s of var ranty.” Ilnnlc, Cov. 21.—Oovenants in gross. Such as do not run with the land- Covenant not to sue. A covciiant by tt
who had a right of action at the time of inn