clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 447   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

32 H. 8, CAP. 34, COVENANTS. 447
afterwards appointed to A., it was held that A. was in by the original con-
veyance, and did not have W.'s estate, and consequently he could not be
sued on the covenant as assignee of W., though the remedy for the rent
by distress or re-entry would still exist, and W. might be sued on his ex-
press covenant, Roach v. Wadham, 6 East, 289. This was a case, however,
of a conveyance in fee, and therefore not within the operation of the statute.
In Webb v. Russell, 3 T. R. 393, Lord Kenyon observed that, under the stat-
ute, the grantees or assignees of the reversion stand in the same situa-
tion, and have the same remedy against their lessees, as the heirs at law
of individuals had before the statute. And in that ease it was held, that if
mortgagor and mortgagee of a term make an under-lease, in which the
covenants for the rent and repairs are only with the mortgagor and his
assigns, the assignee of the mortgagee cannot maintain an action for the
breach of these covenants, because they are collateral to his interest in the
land, and do not run with it; for the mortgagor had only an equity of re-
demption, (an interest of which a Court of law could take no notice,) and
was a stranger to the land. It was also there held that if tenant for a term
of years lease for a less term and assign his reversion, and the assignee
take a conveyance of the fee, by which his former reversionary interest
is merged, the covenants incident to that reversionary interest are thereby
extinguished. And a case from Moor. 94, was cited, where a person made
a lease for 100 years; the lessee made an under-lease for 20 years, render-
ing rent with a clause of re-entry; afterwards the original lessor granted
the reversion in fee, and the grantee purchased the reversion of the term;
and it was held that the grantee should not have either the rent, or the
power of re-entry, for the reversion of the term, to which they were inci-
dent, was extinguished in the reversion in fee. However, in Stokes v.
Russell, 3 T. R. 678, upon the same covenants, it was determined that the
action might be maintained in the name of the mortgagor, as they were
covenants in gross. The proper course to be pursued in such leases would
seem to be for the mortgagee to demise and the mortgagor to confirm, and
the covenants should be entered into with the mortgagee, and separately,
with the mortgagor. In Wootton v. Steffononi, 12 M. & W. 129, where hus-
band and wife and A. joined in a demise, the former being seised of a
moiety only in right of the wife, and the covenant was made with the hus-
band and A. only, it was doubted whether it ran with the land, without an
averment that the breach was committed in the life-time of the wife; and
Parke B. queried whether on a demise of two undivided interests, of which
the parties were tenants in common, a joint covenant with both would run
with the reversion. In Magnay v. Edwards, 22 L. J. C. P. 170, the mort-
gagor and mortgagee of one undivided moiety and the owner of the other
joined in a lease of the whole premises to A., who covenanted with the
three jointly and severally to pay the rent, not saying to whom. A. having
entered and become bankrupt, his assignees accepted the lease, and they
were held liable for the rent due thereafter in an action at the suit of the
three lessors, on the authority of Wakefield v. Brown, 9 Q. B. 209, though
it was strongly insisted that the statute did not extend to covenants en-
tered into with persons who are not parties to the demise, or who have no
reversion in the demised premises. Webb v. Russell was followed in Wahl

 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 447   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives