case andrews against paradise refer to Anderson v Oppenheimer Q b d Harrison  ainslie company v Lord muncaster Q b if a man covenant that he will not  interrupt the covenantee in the enjoyment of a close the erection of a gate  which intercept it be a breach of the covenant although he have a right to  erect it error of a judgement in the common plea in a action of covenant in a  indenture to lead the use of a fine wherein the cognisor covenant that the  cognisee shall quiet enjoy c and that he will not do any thing to molest  hinder or prevent he the cognisee or his wife or any occupier of they in the  quiet possession or enjoyment of the land c but that the defendant have molest  he c the defendant plead that he have do nothing to molest binder or prevent  the cognisee or his wife c modern report the plaintiff reply and assign a  breach for that he be seize of a close in such a field be parcel of the land  now purchase under his fine and conveyance and that there be a lane lead to  this close through which lane the plaintiff have a way to the close and that  the defendant scilicet postea do erect a gate across that way per quod the  plaintiff tenant be obstruct in the quiet possession and enjoyment of the  aforesaid close c and upon a demurrer to this replication the plaintiff have  judgement in the common plea and now upon this writ of error bring it be  insist that the judgement shall be reverse first for that the replication be  only argumentative of a obstruction videlicet per quod the plaintiff tenant be  obstruct whereas the plead ought to have be certain second nothing appear in  this replication to show that the set up the gate be unlawful for there may be  another way which may make it necessary and lawful to set up a gate three that  it be not set forth where or to what place this way lead so that the defendant  can make any answer to it the replication be too general fourthly this be not  a obstruction of enjoy the close immediate but by consequence and the  plaintiff have not show that he have a right to enjoy this way it be argue for  the affirmance of this judgement that the lane be leave for the use of this  close upon the enclosure of a common field and that it be convenient for the  purchaser and very necessary for preserve the possession and that this lane be  constant use by the occupier of the close before this conveyance and covenant  be make which be not a covenant as to the right but to secure the plaintiff in  the quiet possession and the breach be well lie videlicet that the defendant  obstruct the quiet enjoyment by set up a gate across the lane the judgement  ought to be affirm the court this appear to be a necessary way for the  enjoyment of this close then whether the gate be set up by right or wrong it  be not material as to the defendant for in either case if it be a obstruction  it ought not to be erect there the judgement be affirm