case holms versus buckley discuss Austerberry v corporation of Oldham Ch d lt  W r Cf tulk v Moxhay Ph and Morland v cook l r Eq February Eq Abr pl S c baron  and feme grant a watercourse through the femes land with covenant for they  their heir and assign to cleanse and keep it in repair and suffer a common  recovery to establish the grant this not a personal covenant as to the baron  and feme but a covenant which run with the land and shall bind the assignee be  make good by the recovery Anthony Bottely and Katherine his wife be seize in  right of the say Katherine of two piece of ground by indenture Jan do grant a  watercourse to one precedent in chancery er p John Howland and his heir  through the say two piece of ground and by that deed do covenant precedent in  chancery for they their heir and assign from time to time to cleanse the same  and that all fine and recovery levy and suffer and to be levy and suffer of  the say ground shall be and enure for the strengthen and confirm the say  watercourse accord to the say grant and afterward the that of the same month  join in v deed declare the use of the recovery to be suffer of the say ground  and that the same shall enure to the strengthen and confirm the watercourse  grant by the say indenture of the that of January the watercourse by mesne  assignment come to the plaintiff and the say two piece of ground to the  defendant who build upon the same and much heighten the ground that lie over  the watercourse and make it much more inconvenient and Chargeable to repair  and as it be allege and in part prove the building have much obstruct the say  watercourse so the bill be to be establish in the enjoyment of the say  watercourse and that the defendant and all claim under they may from time to  time cleanse the same accord to the say covenant it be object for the  defendant that the say covenant be a personal covenant and make by a feme  covert can in no sort bind the defendant and that though the recovery have  make good the grant of the watercourse yet that this personal covenant be not  at all strengthen or better by it and that the plaintiff and those under who  he claim be sensible of it have for year cleanse the same at their own charge  but the court be of opinion that this be a covenant that run with the land and  though make by a feme covert be strengthen and make good by the recovery and  say though the plaintiff have cleanse the same at his own charge while it be  easy to be do and of little charge yet since the right be plain upon the deed  and the cleanse make Chargeable by the building it be reasonable the defendant  shall do it and decree accord and give the plaintiff his cost precedent in  chancery de boundary paschae in curian porter