RESTRICTIONS UPON THE USE OF LAND. 27 J will adopt that rule, or reject it. Again, upon this view principles of restrictions would apply only to real estate. It would seem, however, that restrictive covenants concerning personal property will be enforced against purchasers with notice, when the property is of peculiar value. 1 There is one other possible meaning of the term "equitable easement." A restriction is analogous to an easement in the same way that a cestui que trust resembles the owner of land, or a pledge of title deeds a mortgage. It may be said that there are equi- table easements, in the same sense as there is equitable ownership or an equitable mortgage ; all are forms of trusts. This view is consistent with the theory of Tulk v. Moxhay, and reconciles it to the apparently inconsistent statements in some later opinions. That theory so completely explains the actual decisions that I shall assume it to be correct. This theory presents two sets of questions : first, regarding the creation of a restriction, which is decided upon principles of specific performance of a contract; secondly, the question whether it runs with the land, which is decided upon principles of constructive trusts. As to the first point, it is clear that there must be a binding contract ; but no formalities are necessary. A restriction may be imposed by covenant, — the ordinary case, — or by simple contract, 2 or by contract implied from the acceptance of a deed containing a stipulation by words of reservation, 3 pro- viso, 4 or condition. 5 The fact that a different remedy, i.e., forfeiture of the estate, is attached to a condition does not prevent the im- plication of a promise not to do the act forbidden. 6 A restriction may be implied from acts of the parties, such as reference to plans showing a scheme of restrictions, 7 or representations of the owner. 8 But the evidence of an intention to create a restriction must be very clear, and mere reference to a building scheme will not com- pel the owner to abide by its provisions without change. 9 1 De Matteos v. Gibson, 4 De G. & J. 276; Clarke v. Hint, 22 Pick. 231. 8 Dorr v. Harrigan, 101 Mass. 531. 8 Peck v. Conway, 119 Mass. 546. 4 Jeffries z>. Jeffries, 117 Mass. 183. 6 Parker v. Nightingale, 6 All. 341; Ayling v. Kramer, 133 Mass. 12. 6 3 Parsons on Cont. (6th ed.) 356; Logan v. Wienholt, 1 CI. & Fin. 61 1 ; Plunkett v. M. E. Soc, 3 Cush. 561. 7 Mackenzie v. Childers, 43 Chan. Div. 265. 8 Piggott v. Stratton, 1 De G., F. & J. 33. 9 Light v. Goddard, 11 All. 58; Squire v. Campbell, 1 My. & Cr. 459.
