1. The form in which a restriction is imposed, whether by condition, covenant or reservation, is not so important, the real question being whether it was intended for the benefit of the retained land of the grantor.
2. While there is no presumption that the building restrictions in this case were originally imposed for the benefit of lands retained by the grantor, the evidence discloses circumstances from which it might be concluded that that was the grantor's purpose in imposing the condition.
3. Defendant's predecessors in title entered into an agreement with the executor of the common grantor under which the land was taken subject to several covenants exactly like those imposed by the common grantor, and which agreement gave the executor and the owner or owners of any adjoining land deriving title from the common grantor, the right to institute proceedings at law or in equity against any person violating or threatening to violate the restrictions. Held, the complainant, the owner of an adjoining piece of land whose title derived from the common grantor, has the right to maintain this action to restrain the defendants from violating the building restrictions.
4. The general rule of law is that a third person may enforce a promise made for his benefit even though he is a stranger both to the contract and to the consideration.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the conclusions of Vice-Chancellor Berry.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DALY, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.