Glover against Cope
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 576
IN THE KING'S BENCH.
case 179. glover against cope. Easter Term, 3 William and Mary, Roll 267. If a copyholder make a lease, in which the lessee covenants to repair, and the copyholder afterwards surrenders the reversion to the use of A. the assignee of the reversion, after admittance, may by 32 Hen. 8, c. 34, maintain covenant against the lessee for not repairing, although he had assigned the terra.-S. C. 3 Lev. 326. S. C. 4 Mod. 80. S. C. Garth. 205. S. C. Holt, 159. S. C. Salk. 185. S. C. Skin. 226, 305. S. C. Comb. 315. Covenant: the case was, a copyholder in fee makes a lease for years, with covenants for repairs; the copyholder surrenders to the use of the plaintiff; the plaintiff is admitted; and then brings an action of covenant against the lessee : the lessee pleads an assignment of his term to J. S. : the plaintiff demurs. [285] Mr. Northey for the plaintiff. If this were a freehold, it would be admitted to me, that the action lies at common law, according to the case of Brett v. Cumberland (a); and there is no difference between this case and the case of Swinnerton v. Miller (b). A copyhold rent is incident to the reversion, and passes by a surrender of it (), When () March, 213. Stiles, 369, 375. (/) Statute 1 William and Mary, c. 8. (g) East. Ent. 455. Stautidf. P. C. 101. (A) Dudley's case, 1 Sid. 366. (a) Cro. Jac. 399, 521. Pasch. 136. 3 Bulst. 163. Godb. 276. 1 Roll. Eep. 359. 2 Roll. Eep. 63. (6) Hob. 177. (c) Cro. Eliz. 361. 4 Co. 21, 27. 1 SHOW. K.B.28& MICHAELMAS TERM, 3 WILLIAM AND MARY. IN B. R. 577 a copyholder in fee surrenders, the lord is but an instrument, and the estate of the surrenderor remains in himself, and the surrenderee is an assignee of the estate which he had: it is true, if a copyholder/or life surrender, that is drowned, and the new estate comes out of the estate of the lord, but if in fee it is otherwise. By the common law, an assignee of the reversion might bring covenant, because it runs with the land (d). Here the action is brought against the lessee after assignment; and therefore though he be not chargeable, either upon the estate, or contract, yet he is upon his express undertaking (e). Then he is within 32 Hen. 8, c. 34. A copyhold is within the mischief of the Act, as well as the other case of a freehold; this is a remedial law; and there is the same reason why copyholders should be within the statute, as within the Statute of Champerty (/). This construction alters not the service, or term, or customs of the manor...
To continue reading
Request your trial