Elliston v Reacher [1908]

1.  Before sale
of plots to plaintiff and Defendant, common vendor must have laid out his
estate for sale in lots subject to restrictions which it was intended to impose
on all lots, and were consistent only with some general scheme of development.
2.  Both plaintiff
and defendant to action for breach of restrictive covenant must have derived
their titles to the land from a common vendor.
3.  Restrictions
were and were intended by common vendor to be for benefit of all lots sold.
4.  Original purchasers
must have bought their lots knowing that covenants were intended to benefit all
plots in scheme, ie to be mutually binding.

5.  Geographical
area to which scheme extends must be ascertained with reasonably clear
definitiveness