INCUMBRANCE. Any right to, or inter est in, land which may subsist in third per sons, to the diminUtion of the value of the estate of the tenant, but consistently with the passing of the fee. 2 Greenl. Ev. § 242; Prescott v. Trueman, 4 Mass. 629, 3 Am. Dec. 246; Huyck v. Andrews, 113 N. Y. 81, 20 N. E. 581, 3 L. R. A. 789, 10 Am. St. Rep. 432.
"Every right to or interest in the land which may subsist in third persons to the diminution of the land, but consistent with the passing of the fee by the conveyance." Rawle, Coy. for Title, § 25, approved in Bat ley v. Foerderer, 162 Pa. 466, 29 Atl. 868.
Incumbrance, when used in reference to real estate, includes every right to or inter est in the land granted, to the diminution of the value of the land, but consistent with the passing of the fee by the owner thereof ; Westerlund v. Mining Co., 203 Fed. 599, 121 C. C. A. 627, citing this work. The following are incumbrances: An ordinary lease; Clark v. Fisher, 54 Kan. 403, 38 Pac. 493; an at tachment ; Thatcher v. Valentine, 22 Colo. 201, 43 Pac. 1031; the lien of a judgment; Willsie v. Ranch Co., 7 S. D. 114, 63 N. W. 546 ; taxes and municipal claims; In re Ger ry, 112 Fed. 958; an execution sale subject to redemption; Post v. Caxnpau, 42 Mich. 94, 3 N. W. 272 ; a restriction on the use of land for a brewery or blacksmith shop ; Bat ley v. Foerderer, 162 Pa. 460, 29 Atl. 868; an easement for a party wall; Westerlund v. Min. Co., 203 Fed. 606, 121 C. C. A. 627; Mackey v. Harmon, 34 Minn. 168, 24 N. W. 702; an inchoate right of dower ; Bigelow v. Hubbard, 97 Mass. 195 ; a private right of way, Harlow v. Thomas, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 66; a railroad right of way ; Barlow v. Mc Kinley, 24 Ia. 69; an attachment ; Batley v. Foerderer, 162 Pa. 466, 29 Atl. 870; a right of removal of timber from land; Cathcart v. Bowman, 5 Pa. 317 ; a reservation of min erals ; Adams v. Henderson, 168 U. S. 573, 18 Sup. Ct. 179, 42 L. Ed. 584; Adams v. Reed, 11 Utah 480, 40 Pac. 720.
A public highway ; Kellogg v. Ingersoll, 2 Mass. 97; Prichard v. Atkinson, 3 N. H. 335; Hubbard v. Norton, 10 Conn. 431; Butler v. Gale, 27 Vt. 739 ; Copeland v. McAdory, 100 Ala. 553, 13 South. 545 ; Schmisseur v. Penn, 47 Ill. App. 278 (but see Scribner v. Holmes, 16 Ind. 142 ; Kutz v. McCune, 22 Wis. 628, 99 Am. Dec. 85 ; Moore v. Johnston, 87 Ala. 220, 6 South. 50 ; Harrison v. R. Co., 91 Ia. 114, 58 N. W. 1081; even though it has been practically abandoned by the public years before; Howell v. Northampton R. Co., 211 Pa. 284, 60 Atl. 793 ; a private right of way; Harlow v. Thomas, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 68 ; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 497; an easement which is open, visible, and well known ; Huyck v. Andrews, 113 N. Y. 81, 20 N. E. 581, 3 L. R. A. 789, 10 Am. St. Rep. 432; a claim of dower ; Prescott v. Trueman, 4 Mass. 030, 3 Am. Dec. 246; Thrasher v.
Pinckard's Heirs, 23 Ala. 616; though in choate only; Porter v. Noyes, 2 Greenl. (Me.) 22, 11 Am. Dec. 30; Shearer v. Ranger, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 447; an outstanding mortgage ;
Bean v. Mayo, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 94; Keller v. Asbford, 133 II. S. 610, 10 Sup. Ct. 494, 33 L. Ed. 667 (other than one which the cove nantee is bound to pay ; Watts v. Welinan, 2 N. H. 458; Wyman v. Ballard, 12 Mass. 304; Funk v. Voneida, 11 S. & R. [Pa.] 109, 14 Am. Dec. 617 ; Stewart v. Drake, 9 N. J. L. 139; see Olney v. Ins. Co., 88 Mich. 94, 50 N. W. 100, 13 L. R. A. 684, 26 Am. St. Rep. 281) ; a liability under the tax laws; Hutch ins v. Moody, 30 Vt. 655 ; Leong v. Moler, 5 Ohio St. 271; Mitchell v. Pillsbury, 5 Wis. 407; see Tibbetts v. Leeson, 148 Mass. 102, 18 N. E. 679 (but no tax or assessment can exist so as to be an incumbrance, until the amount is ascertained or determined; Harper v. Dowdney, 113 N. Y. 644, 21 N. E. 63) ; an attachment resting upon land ; Kelsey v. Remer, 43 Conn. 129, 21 Am. Rep. 638; John son v. Collins, 116 Mass. 392; a condition, the non-performance of which by the gran tee may work a forfeiture of the estate ; Jenks v. Ward, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 412; restric tion as to the kind of building which may be erected on land ; Doctor v. Darling, 68 Hun 70, 22 N. Y. Supp. 594; a mechanic's lien ; Redmon v. Ins. Co., 51 Wis. 293, 8 N. W. 226, 37 Am. Rep. 830; have been held incumbranc es within the meaning of the covenant against incumbrances, contained in convey ances. The term does not include a condi tion on which an estate is held; EF.tabrook v. Smith, 6 Gray (Mass.) 572, 66 Am. Dec. 443.
A restriction against wooden structures, but which were prohibited by law, is not incumbrance ; Batley v. Foerderer, 162 /Pa. 466, 29 Atl. 868.
The vendor of real estate is bound in England to disclose incumbrances, and to de liver to the purchaser the instruments by which they were created, or on which the defects arise ; and the neglect of this is to be considered fraud ; Sudg. Vend. 6; 1 Ves. Sen. 96. See Kauffelt v. Bower, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 73, 10 Am. Dec. 428.
The interest on incumbrances is to be kept down by the tenant for life; 1 Washb. R. P. 95, 257, 573; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 482, 9 Am. Dec. 318; Lessee of Mc Millan v. Robbins, 5 Ohio 28 ; to the extent of rents accruing; 31 E. L. & Eq. 345 ; Tudor, Lead. Cas. 60; and for any sum paid beyond that he becomes a creditor of the estate; Warley v. Warley, Bail. Eq. (S. C.) 397.
When the whole incumbrance is removed by a single payment, the share of the tenant for life is the present worth of an annuity for the life of the tenant equal to the an nual amount of the interest which he would be obliged to pay; 1 Washb. R. P. 96, 573. The rule applies to estates held in dower; Estabrook v. Hapgood, 10 Mass. 315 ; Bell v. New York, 10 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 71; House v. House, 10 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 158; Aber crombie v. Riddle, 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 324; in curtesy; 1 Washb. R. P. 142; in tail only in special cases; 1 Washb. R. P. 80; Tudor, Lead. Cas. 613; 3 P. Wins. 229. See COVE NANT AOAINST INCUMBRANCES.