Before the decision in Tulk v. Moxhay, a contract not to use land in a particular manner was treated by equity courts in the same way as were other negative contracts; if the plaintiff was so injured in the enjoyment of his own land that damages at law did not furnish an adequate remedy, equity would specifically enforce the contract by granting an injunction against the promisor. The right thus to control the use of the property in the hands of the promisor can hardly be classified as other than a property right, but since it was enforcible only against the promisor it was a property right that could be easily destroyed by any alienation of the property and therefore was of relatively small value.
George L. Clark,
Equitable Servitudes in Missouri,
16 Bulletin Law Series.
Available at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol16/iss1/3