COVENANT AGAINST INCUMBRANCES. Alternative covenants are disjunctive cove nants.
Aux=iliary covenants are those which do not relate directly to the principal matter of contract between the parties, but to some thing connected with it. Those the scope of whose operations is in aid or support of the principal covenant. If the principal cove nant is void, the auxiliary is discharged; Anstr. 256; Prec. Chanc. 475.
Collateral covenants are those which are entered into in connection with the grant oi something, but which do not relate immedi ately to the thing granted: as, to pay el sum of money in gross, that the lessor shall distrain for rent on some other land than that which is demised, to build a house on the land of some third person, or the like. Platt, Coy. 69; Shepp. Touchst. 161; 4 Burr. 2439; 3 Term 393 ; 2 J. B. Moore 164; 5 B. & Ald. 7; 2 Wils. 27 ; 1 Ves. 56.
Concurrent covenants are those which are to be performed at the same time. When one party is ready and offers to perform his part, and the other refuses or neglects to perform his, he who is ready and offers has fulfilled his engagement, and may maintain an action for the default of the other, though it is not certain that either is obliged to do the first act ; Platt, Coy. 71; 2 Selw. N. P. 443; Dougl. 698; 18 E. L. & Eq. 81; Good win v. Lynn, 4 Wash. C. C. 714, Fed. Cas. No. 5,553 ; Denny v. Kile, 16 Mo. 450.
Declaratory covenants are those which serve to limit or direct uses. 1 Sid. 27; 1 Hob. 224.
Dependent covenants are those in which the obligation to perform one is made to de pend upon the performance of the other. Covenants may be so connected that the right to insist upon the performance of one of them depends upon a prior performance on the part of the party seeking enforce ment. Platt, Coy. 71; 2 Selw. N. P. 443 ; 1 C. B. N. S. 646; Northrup v. Northrup, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 296; Cassell v. Cooke, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 268, 11 Am. Dec. 610; Smith v. Lewis, 24 Conn. 624, 63 Am. Dec. 180; Low v. Marshall, 17 Me. 232; Humphries v.
Goulding, 3 Ark. 581 ;. Caldwell v. Kirkpat rick, 6 Ala. 60, 41 ,Am. Dec. 36 ; Bailey v. White, 3 Ala. 330. To ascertain whether covenants are dependent or not, the inten tion of the parties is to be sought for and regarded, rather than the order or time in which the acts are to be done, or the struc ture of the instrument, or the arrangement of the covenant; 1 Wins. Saund. 320, n.; 5 B. & P. 223; Goodwin v. Lynn, 4 Wash. O. C. 714, Fed. Cas. No. 5,553; McCrelish v. Churchman, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 26; Grant v. Johnson, 5 N. Y. 247; Leveret v. Sherman, 1 Root (Conn.) 170; Brockenbiough v. Ward's Adm'r, 4 Rand. (Va.) 352. See note to Cut ter v. Powell, 2 Smith Lead. Cas. 22.
Disjunctive covenants. Those which are for the performance of one or more of sev eral things at the election of the covenantor or covenantee, as the case may be. Platt, Coy. 21; Harmony v. Bingham, 1 Duer Y.) 209.
Executory covenants are those whose per formance is to be future. Shepp. Touchst. 161.
Express covenants are those which are created by the express words of the parties to the deed declaratory of their intention ; Platt, Coy. 25. The formal word covenant is not indispenSably requisite for the crea tion of an express covenant ; 5 Q. B. 683; 8;.I. B. Moore 546; Marshall v. Craig, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 370, 4 Am. Dec. 647; Hallett V. Wylie, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 44, 3 Am. Dec. 457; Mitchell v. Hazen, 4 Conn. 508, 10 Am. Dec. 169; Randel v. Canal, 1 Harr. (Del.) 233. The words "I oblige," "agree," 1 Ves. 516; "I bind myself," Hardr. 178; 3 Leon. 119; have been held to be words of covenant, as are the words of a bond ; 1 Ch. Cas. 194. Any words showing the intent of the parties to do or not to do a certain thing, raise an express covenant ; Lovering v. Lovering, 13 N. H. 513. But words importing merely an order or di rection that other persons should pay a sum of money, are not .a covenant; 6 J. B. Moore 202.
Covenants for further assurance. See COVENANT FOR FURTHER ASSURANCE.