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