If there is a general plan applicable to all the lots, or if the owner by express agreement binds himself not to sell any lots except subject to certain restrictions, then he will be bound by it himself, and the land will be bound by it in the hands of purchasers with notice, whether there be a contract with the purchaser or not. In Talmadge v. The East River Bank,1 in an action against a purchaser who had made no covenant, the court said: "Selling and conveying the lots under such circumstances and with such assurances, though verbal, bound Davis (the vendor), in equity and good conscience, to use and dispose of all the remaining lots so that the assurances upon which Maxwell (the plaintiff) and others had bought their lots would be kept or fulfilled. This equity attached to the remaining lots, so that any one taking from Davis any one or more of the remaining lots with notice of the equity as between Davis and Maxwell and others, the prior purchasers, would not stand in a different situation from Davis, but would be bound by that equity." In Lenning v. Ocean City Association it was held by the Court of Errors of New Jersey that the sale of lots in a camp-meeting ground with reference to a map showing a central plot which it was understood was to be used for tents, was sufficient to bind the vendors not to lease any part of this plot for the erection of wooden dwelling-houses. The obligation was put upon the ground of an implied covenant arising out of the use of this map under these circumstances. See also Parker v. Nightingale, Newmann v. Ellis,* Duke of Bedford v. British Museum.5 In a recent case in Eng. land, where land was put up for sale as building land subject to restrictive building conditions, and the vendors had not sold all the lots, an intending purchaser of one of them asked for a declaration that he was entitled to the benefit of an implied contract by the vendors that they would observe the same conditions as to the unsold lots. Mr. Justice Stirling said the circumstances of the case must be looked at to see whether the covenants were merely for the protection of the vendors, or whether they were intended for the common advantage of the purchasers. Under the circumstances of this case he held that the vendors had invited the people to buy on the footing that one general plan should bind the whole estate; • In re Birmingham and District Land Company and Allday, 27 Notes of Cases, 147. and he made the declaration asked for. It has been suggested that there are cases of this kind in which the vendor is restrained from using the land in a manner inconsistent with the restrictions, on the principle that a man shall not be allowed to derogate from his own grant; but this principle belongs to the law of easements arising out of the sale of two tenements, and the case of Master v. Hansard,1 in which it was invoked, was a case in which a lessor, who had taken covenants from his lessees of adjoining lots, permitted one of them to erect a building so as to darken the windows of the other; and even in this case the court held that the principle did not apply. We have not attempted to limit or define the principle on which relief is granted against the violation of restrictive covenants, nor to refer to all the reasons suggested by the courts for granting the relief under various circumstances; but on following several lines of cases, and reading the recent decisions in New Jersey, it seems to be clear that, in order that relief may be granted in favor of any one purchaser against another, there must be something more than the mere covenant of each purchaser with the vendor; and also that it must appear that back of this was some general plan relating to all the lands sold, intended for the common advantage of the purchasers, and entering into the consideration of the purchases. It must also appear that the sales were made with notice of this plan and under an agreement, express or implied, that the plan was to be carried out with respect to the lots sold or to be sold in pursuance of it. Any purchaser of a part of this land with notice of this plan or purpose is subject in equity to the restrictions imposed for the purpose of carrying it out, and has the benefit of the restrictions placed upon others without regard to the order of their conveyances. His right, as well as his duty, springs out of the original plan under which all alike have taken; and there is no need to inquire whether the plaintiff is the assignee of the covenant in the defendant's deed, or whether the covenant runs with the land. The restriction imposed by the original plan affects all purchasers alike; each one consents to it for himself, and has a right to assume that all others have assented to it. It is prior to all the purchases, and becomes a condition upon which the purchases are made. It is a breach of faith to use the land in violation of the restriction, and the Court of Equity will interfere by injunction at the instance 1 L. R. 4 Ch. Div. 718. of any person interested to prevent the common purpose from being defeated by any person who has received the benefit of the restriction imposed upon the land for the common advantage.1 The vendor himself will also be subject to the same equities with respect to any land which, either expressly or by implication, he has agreed shall be used under the same restrictions; and the question in every case is a question of evidence with regard to the intention expressed by the vendors, and the scope and character of the plan as made known to the public and to the purchasers of the lands.2 NEWARK, New Jersey, Edward Q. Keasbey. 1 See the language of Bigelow, C. J., and Beasley, C. J., quoted on pages 281-283 from Whitney v. Union Ry. Co., 11 Gray, 359, and Brewer v. Marshall, 19 N. J. Eq. 337. See also Spicer v. Martin, 16 Q. B. D. 778. 2 De Gray v. Monmouth Beach Club House Co., 24 Atl. Rep. 388; Nottingham Brick & Tile Co. v. Butler, 16 Q. B. D. 778–783. RECORD TITLE TO LAND. HERE has been a growing interest of recent years in the question of greater certainty and simplification in land titles. Various projects of improvement are before the public. There has been in some parts of the country a great improvement in registry systems, particularly in the matter of indexes. Strong efforts have been made for the introduction of a block system of indexing, designed to reduce to a minimum the number of conveyances to be examined to discover those which pertain to a given parcel of land. Statutes have been passed facilitating the removal of certain classes of clouds upon titles, as, for example, old mortgages, alleged to be satisfied, but not discharged of record. It has recently been proposed, in more than one State, to carry out to their logical results the principles involved in all such legislation, and to introduce a full and complete system of establishment of titles, which shall settle, as against all the world, up to a given date, the title of a given parcel of land, and thenceforth keep it constantly posted up, so that it may be at all times certain and known, -as far as certainty is possible, - and be passed without expense or delay. The practicability of such a plan has been fully demonstrated in the British colony which has given many of our States their present voting system. The advisability of legislation by us in this direction is likely to be more and more discussed in the next few years. For a full understanding of the merits of any scheme which may be proposed, whether partial or general, it is essential to have clearly before the mind the difficulties of the existing system. Although a system of registration of deeds prevails to a certain extent in England, title is commonly passed there by a mere delivery of deeds. A system of registration of deeds universally prevails throughout this country; and has prevailed, in the older States, from the very earliest days, substantially in its present form. This difference between the American system and the system generally prevailing in England is so apparent and striking that we are accustomed to consider it as radical. There is a widespread popular conviction that our land titles are "record titles," in the sense that they may be ascertained by an examination of records. The fact is, that there is no such thing, even in this country, as a "record title," in the proper sense of those words. No title can be ascertained by the records of the registry of deeds, or other records practically accessible, or, indeed, by any records. A title depends, not only upon the deeds and other writings appearing of record, but also upon a great number of facts nowhere appearing of record. It is proposed in this article to call attention to some of these non-record elements of so-called "record titles." I. The registry of deeds affords no means of verifying the genuineness of signatures, either of the grantors in deeds, or of the magistrates who, under the prevailing American system, take acknowledgments of signatures. In Massachusetts there are thousands of justices of the peace, all with power to take acknowledgments of deeds. A title will often depend upon the genuineness and proper authentication of ten, twenty, or thirty deeds. Each deed purports to have been acknowledged before a magistrate, ordinarily before a justice of the peace. Whether the person of that name was a justice of the peace, may be ascertained at the State House; but whether it was he or some other person of the same name who signed, and whether the signature was genuine or not, there are no means of ascertaining. Among the number of justices of the peace in Boston is one R— S—; but the Boston directory shows eight persons of that name, and there is no way of proving by the record in the registry of deeds that the RS— who signed a given certificate of acknowledgment is the same RSwho is a justice of the peace. It is perfectly easy, owing to the lack of means of ascertaining the genuineness of signatures, to perpetrate the grossest frauds upon the most careful purchasers; and gross frauds have within recent years been so perpetrated. 2. The title to almost every parcel of land must turn at some stage of its history upon the question of heirship. An owner dies intestate; very possibly no administration is taken out upon his personal estate, and even if it is, the record recitals and the decrees with reference to the question of who are his next of kin are not necessarily conclusive with regard to the heirs' title to the real estate. A subsequent purchaser must, at his own peril, ascertain for himself who were the heirs; and not infrequently, especially after a considerable lapse of time, this is a matter of great difficulty. Occasionally it is impossible, particularly in the case of a person of foreign birth leaving no issue, to ascertain with any |