A covenant was given for the benefit of the vendors, their heirs and assigns "and others claiming under them to all or any of their lands adjoining or near to the [premises conveyed]." Held: The words were a sufficient description.
Farwell J: The only problem was whether the benefits had passed to the claimant, him being unaware of them when he bought the property. Doesn’t matter because the covenant itself purported to be for his benefit. “Covenants which run with the land must have the following characteristics: (1.) they must be made with a covenantee who has an interest in the land to which they refer; (2.) they must concern or touch the land.” However even covenants with these characteristics may not be allowed to run with the land. Whether a covenant does run with the land is “a question of intention”. Supports Garnder’s idea (according to Gardner) of a “local law” being created that operates b people moving in and out of the area. The fact that it has to have been “annexed” is not using the requirement in the same way as previous cases. Farwell J was using express annexation as evidence of intention that the covenant stay with the land. In the same way, a building scheme is good evidence of an “intention” to create a covenant that stays with the land. These are evidentiary, not processes of the law itself. Therefore simple intention is enough to create covenants.