Volume 121 — New Hampshire Reports

1. Property — Use Restrictions Declaration of land use restrictions recorded in name of corporation which never had title to defendants' land was not relevant to issues in case where defendants' adjoining landowners sought enforcement of certain land use restrictions. 2. Property — Use Restrictions Declaration of land use restrictions recorded by persons with title to subdivision and applying to the subdivision in general and to lot later purchased by defendants in particular, which a title search would reveal, and which purported to restrict uses of a lot even if the deed to the lot did not specifically refer to the declaration, was not enforceable as restrictive or real covenants running with defendants' land where no such agreement appeared in the deeds of defendants and their predecessors in title; but defendants took their land with constructive notice of the declaration and thus an equitable servitude was created. 3. Covenants — Generally A covenant, broadly speaking, is an agreement between two or more persons to do or permit a particular act and, strictly speaking, is an agreement by deed to do or not to do a particular act. 4. Property — Servitudes An equitable servitude may arise when there is a general scheme of land development and binds one who acquires land with notice of a restriction upon the land. 5. Property — Servitudes Whether to enforce an equitable servitude upon land by granting an injunction is for trial court's sound discretion, exercised upon consideration of all the circumstances and controlled by established principles of equity, and the decision will be upheld unless it is apparent from the record that there has been an abuse of discretion. 6. Property — Servitudes Determinative question when a party seeks to enforce an equitable servitude by an injunction is whether injunctive relief would be equitable in view of all the circumstances.<page_number>Page 131</page_number> 7. Property — Use Restrictions Where land use restrictions intended to insure use of subdivision for "attractive private residential purposes only" constituted an equitable servitude on defendants' lot, defendants' grant of a right-of-way for access road across their lot, limited by lower court to servicing a maximum of five residential lots, would not interfere with the carrying out of the general plan for the area and the purposes of the restrictions.