We think that the restrictive covenants, read in the fight of the surrounding circumstances, must be held to have been intended as a burden running with the land.

The judgment which describes the defendants’ easement as “ perpetual ” does not, by such description, affect the power of the Supreme Court to withhold the remedy of injunction upon facts sufficient to justify the *522 substitution of money damages in the exercise of a sound discretion.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.