1853. LACHLAN v. REYNOLDS. Judgment. investment, and that the vendors can secure that object to the purchaser by bringing an ejectment against the occupier, or giving the purchaser meanwhile interest on his money, or a compensation for the objects he had in view; but I think that the purchaser is entitled to say that the representation made to him was, that he could get possession at any time. And as this is not a case of accidental delay, but a question whether or not there was good faith in the representation which was made to the purchaser; and there being, as I think, a want of such good faith, I should not consider it at all proper, if he is dissatisfied, to hold him to his contract. Therefore, an order must be made in the form of the order in Calvert v. Godfrey (a). The deposit must be returned; but, as it has not borne interest, I do not think I can give interest in this proceeding. (a) 6 Beav. 97. Nov. 18th. Injunction Building Covenants not run ning with the Land-Notice. A vendor enter COLES v. SIMS. JOHN SHEWELL, being entitled in fee simple to a house, with a court and garden adjoining the south front thereof, situated at Cambray, in Cheltenham, divided the ed into agreements, by deed, to sell to A., B., and C., certain land, in lots, for building purposes, reserving to himself a portion. Each deed of agreement contained covenants between the vendor and purchasers respectively, and amongst others, that the purchasers should, within a certain time, erect dwelling-houses upon their respective lots, in a uniform row, in a certain specified position, and that no building should be erected on the piece of ground in front of each house, which was to be laid out as a garden, and that the vendor would dispose of all the lots subject to the same conditions as to building; and that in case the vendor should build upon the portion reserved by him, he would build in a line with the other houses, and would keep a similar piece of land in front for a garden. Before the contracts were completed by conveyance, the vendor sold and conveyed the reserved land to J., and the deed of conveyance recited the said sales, and contained a covenant by the vendor, that, in the conveyances to A., B., and C., he would require them to enter into covenants with J., similar to their covenants in the agreements. J. also thereby covenanted with the vendor, that, if he should build on the land purchased by him, he would build within the line, and would keep the said piece of ground in front as a garden. Subsequently the land purchased by 4. was conveyed to him by a deed, in which A. entered into the same covenants as he had entered into in the deed of agreement. After divers mesne assignments, the land purchased by J. became vested in the Defendants, with notice of the agreements and of J.'s covenants in his purchase deed, and the land of A. came in like manner to the Plaintiff:-Held, that, whether the covenants ran with the land or not, as the Defendants had notice of them, the Plaintiff might have an injunction to restrain the Defendants from building in a manner contrary to the general scheme for the benefit of all the original parties. larger portion of the garden into six plots, for building purposes, reserving to himself his house and the court and a small piece of garden land. · By an indenture, dated the 1st of September, 1823, and made between the said John Shewell of the one part, and Samuel Morris of the other part, in consideration of 7001. to be paid by Samuel Morris to John Shewell, at the times and in manner therein mentioned, the said John Shewell, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, covenanted with the said Samuel Morris, his heirs and assigns, to convey to him or them lots 1 and 2 of the said land, which was described in the deed and on the plan annexed as being so laid out for building. And by the same agreement, after a statement that all the lots of ground so laid out as therein before mentioned were intended for the erection of a row of dwelling-houses, and that it was the desire of the parties thereto that such row should present as nearly as might be an uniform external appearance, the said Samuel Morris, so far as respected the said lots of ground and premises thereby agreed to be sold to him, and the buildings to be erected thereon, did thereby, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, covenant, promise, and agree with and to the said John Shewell, his heirs and assigns; and the said John Shewell, so far as respected all the other lots of building-ground so laid out or intended to be laid out and sold by him as aforesaid, and the buildings to be erected by the different purchasers thereon, and the several acts, payments, matters, and things in respect of the same lots of ground and buildings, to be respectively erected, built, made, done, and performed by them as thereinafter mentioned, did thereby, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, covenant, promise, and agree with and to the said Samuel Morris, his heirs and assigns, in manner following:-Then followed covenants (amongst 1853. COLES v. SIMS. Statement. 1853. COLES v. SIMS. Statement. other things), that the said Samuel Morris, his heirs and assigns, should, within two months, begin to erect upon each of the said lots thereby agreed to be sold, two dwelling-houses, and should finish the same within two years from the date thereof; and that the eastern part of such houses should range with the like fronts of all the messuages which should be thereafter built on the other lots, and should be erected and stand back in a regular line at the distance of thirty feet from the western edge of the pavement thereinafter covenanted to be laid down in Cambray-place; and that no building of any other description whatsoever should at any time thereafter be erected, built, or set up in or upon or against the said eastern front of the said messuages, lands, and premises, or any of them, or upon the said ground in front thereof, but that the ground on the eastern front of all the said messuages should be laid out as pleasureground, and should be for ever thereafter used as a flowergarden and pleasure-ground; and that no shrub or tree should be planted in the same ground which should grow or extend ten feet in height from the ground. And the said agreement contained a provision, that certain trades should not be carried on in the said messuages so to be erected, and a covenant that the said John Shewell, his heirs or assigns, should not nor would dispose of any of the said remaining four lots of building ground, unless subject to the like conditions and restrictions as to building and otherwise, to the end that the intention of the said parties, as to the uniformity of the said row of messuages and otherwise in relation thereto thereinbefore set forth, might ultimately be carried into full and complete effect; and that the said John Shewell, his heirs and assigns, should and would, when and in case he should build a messuage or messuages and premises on the pleasure-ground between the messuage intended to be erected on the lot of ground No. 1, and the messuage in which he then resided, erect the front 1853. COLES v. thereof in a line with the said messuages thereinbefore covenanted to be erected by Samuel Morris, and should and would set out the ground in front thereof, and keep the same similar in all respects as the said ground in front of the said messuages then intended to be erected was thereinbefore Statemen covenanted to be set out and kept. John Shewell agreed to sell Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 to Thomas Bromfield, John Sheldon, James Bate, and Joseph Smith respectively; and the bill alleged that John Shewell entered into similar written contracts with these persons. Samuel Morris and the other purchasers of the said building lots proceeded to erect messuages upon their respective lots according to the agreement. And in the month of November, 1823, before the time fixed by such agreements for the conveyance of their lots to the respective purchasers, John Shewell sold the said house, court, and garden, which he had reserved, to Thomas Jones; and by indentures of lease and appointment and release, dated respectively the 20th and 21st of November, 1823, the appointment and release being made between the said John Shewell of the first part, the said Thomas Jones of the second part, and Thomas Griffiths of the third part, after reciting the said sales to the said Samuel Morris, Thomas Bromfield, John Sheldon, James Bate, and Joseph Smith, the said John Shewell, in consideration of the sum of 1800l., appointed and conveyed the said messuage, court, and garden, with the appurtenances, to the said Thomas Jones, his heirs and assigns, for ever. And the said indenture of release contained a covenant by the said John Shewell, for himself, his heirs and assigns, with the said Thomas Jones, his heirs and assigns, that in the several releases and appointments, or other conveyances and assurances, which he should make and execute to the said Samuel Morris, Thomas Bromfield, John Sheldon, James Bate, and Joseph Smith, and each of them, SIMS. 1853. COLES v. SIMS. Statement. or to their heirs and assigns respectively, of the respective lots or lot of ground purchased, he the said John Shewell, his heirs and assigns, should require the said Samuel Morris, Thomas Bromfield, John Sheldon, James Bate, Joseph Smith, and each of them, and their and each of their heirs and assigns, to enter, on their and each of their parts and behalves, to and with the said Thomas Jones, his heirs and assigns, into all and singular the several covenants, provisoes, and agreements mentioned and contained in the several contracts so entered into by them for the purchase of their respective lot or lots of the said ground, or such of the said covenants, agreements, and provisoes, as should be then necessary and be in existence. And the same indenture also contained a covenant by the said Thomas Jones, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, with and to the said John Shewell, his heirs and assigns, that he the said Thomas Jones, his heirs, appointees, and assigns, should and would, when and in case he should build a messuage or messuages on the said piece of garden-ground thereby conveyed, erect the front thereof in a line with the said messuages erected or intended to be erected by the said Samuel Morris, Thomas Bromfield, John Sheldon, James Bate, and Joseph Smith, and should and would set out the ground in front thereof and keep the same similar in all respects as the said ground in front of the said messuages then erecting by the said Samuel Morris and others was intended to be set out and kept. Samuel Morris completed two messuages upon the two lots which he had agreed to purchase, and laid out the gardens and pleasure-ground belonging to them according to the terms of his agreement; and by indentures of lease and appointment and release, dated respectively the 27th and 28th of February, 1824, the appointment and release being made between the said John Shewell of the first part, the said Samuel Morris of the second part, and Jo |