Rogers v Hosegood [1900]

Facts

  • A covenant was made in favour of vendors, heirs and assigns of land adjoining or near to the covenantor’s land
  • The (restrictive) covenant required the covenantor’s land to be used for residential purposes only

Issue

  • Was the covenant enforceable by the successor of a neighbour of the covenantor, who had no knowledge of the covenant when he purchased his land?

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • The claimant was referred to in the covenant itself, and his land was touched and concerned by the covenant
  • This case had no objection the benefit or burden of a covenant passing through either equity or at common law, irrespective of the method by which the other had passed – it allowed ‘mixing and matching’ of equity and the common law for this purpose
  • The benefit was clearly part of the land; and was not intended to run personally
RELATED CASE  National Provincial Bank v Hastings Car Mart [1964]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 18th May 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy