the common law-第78章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


hould　pass　irrespective　of　privity　are　not　governed　by　the　same　rule　which　governs　warranties。

These　questions　have　not　lost　their　importance。　Covenants　for　title　are　in　every　deed；　and　other　covenants　are　＇402＇　only　less　common；　which；　it　remains　to　show；　belong　to　the　other　class。

Chief　among　these　is　the　covenant　to　repair。　It　has　already　been　observed　that　an　easement　of　fencing　may　be　annexed　to　land；　and　it　was　then　asked　what　was　the　difference　in　kind　between　a　right　to　have　another　person　build　such　structures；　and　a　right　to　have　him　repair　structures　already　built。　Evidence　is　not　wanting　to　show　that　the　likeness　was　perceived。　Only；　as　such　covenants　are　rarely；　if　ever；　made；　except　in　leases；　there　is　always　privity　to　the　original　parties。　For　the　lease　could　not；　and　the　reversion　would　not　be　likely　to；　go　by　disseisin。

The　Dean　of　Windsor's　Case　decides　that　such　a　covenant　binds　an　assignee　of　the　term；　although　not　named。　It　is　reported　in　two　books　of　the　highest　authority；　one　of　the　reporters　being　Lord　Coke；　the　other　Croke；　who　was　also　a　judge。　Croke　gives　the　reason　thus：　〃For　a　covenant　which　runs　and　rests　with　the　land　lies　for　or　against　the　assignee　at　the　common　law；　quia　transit　terra　cum　onere；　although　the　assignees　be　not　named　in　the　covenant。〃　/1/　This　is　the　reason　which　governed　easements；　and　the　very　phrase　which　was　used　to　account　for　all　possessors　being　bound　by　a　covenant　binding　a　parcel　of　land　to　warranty。　Coke　says；　〃For　such　covenant　which　extends　to　the　support　of　the　thing　demised　is　quodammodo　appurtenant　to　it；　and　goes　with　it。〃　Again　the　language　of　easements。　And　to　make　this　plainer；　if　need　be；　it　is　added；　〃If　a　man　grants　to　one　estovers　to　repair　his　house；　it　is　appurtenant　to　his　house。〃　Estovers　for　＇403＇　repair　went　with　the　land；　like　other　rights　of　common；　/1/　which；　as　Lord　Coke　has　told　us；　passed　even　to　disseisors。

In　the　next　reign　the　converse　proposition　was　decided；　that　an　assignee　of　the　reversion　was　entitled　in　like　manner　to　the　benefit　of　the　covenant；　because　〃it　is　a　covenant　which　runs　with　the　land。〃　/2/　The　same　law　was　applied；　with　still　clearer　reason；　to　a　covenant　to　leave　fifteen　acres　unploughed　for　pasture；　which　was　held　to　bind　an　assignee　not　named；　/3/　and；　it　would　seem；　to　a　covenant　to　keep　land　properly　manured。　/4/

If　the　analogy　which　led　to　this　class　of　decisions　were　followed　out；　a　disseisor　could　sue　or　be　sued　upon　such　covenants；　if　the　other　facts　were　of　such　a　kind　as　to　raise　the　question。　There　is　nothing　but　the　novelty　of　the　proposition　which　need　prevent　its　being　accepted。　It　has　been　mentioned　above；　that　words　of　covenant　may　annex　an　easement　to　land；　and　that　words　of　grant　may　import　a　covenant。　It　would　be　rather　narrow　to　give　a　disseisor　one　remedy；　and　deny　him　another；　where　the　right　was　one；　and　the　same　words　made　both　the　grant　and　the　covenant。　/5/

The　language　commonly　used；　however；　throws　doubt　and　darkness　over　this　and　every　other　question　connected　with　the　subject。　It　is　a　consequence；　already　referred　to；　of　confounding　covenants　for　title；　and　the　class　last　discussed；　＇404＇　under　the　name　of　covenants　running　with　the　land。　According　to　the　general　opinion　there　must　be　a　privity　of　estate　between　the　covenantor　and　covenantee　in　the　latter　class　of　cases　in　order　to　bind　the　assigns　of　the　covenantor。　Some　have　supposed　this　privity　to　be　tenure；　some；　an　interest　of　the　covenantee　in　the　land　of　the　covenantor；　and　so　on。　/1/　The　first　notion　is　false；　the　second　misleading；　and　the　proposition　to　which　they　are　applied　is　unfounded。　Privity　of　estate；　as　used　in　connection　with　covenants　at　common　law；　does　not　mean　tenure　or　easement；　it　means　succession　to　a　title。　/2/　It　is　never　necessary　between　covenantor　and　covenantee；　or　any　other　persons；　except　between　the　present　owner　and　the　original　covenantee。　And　on　principle　it　is　only　necessary　between　them　in　those　casessuch　as　warranties；　and　probably　covenants　for　titlewhere；　the　covenants　being　regarded　wholly　from　the　side　of　contract；　the　benefit　goes　by　way　of　succession；　and　not　with　the　land。

If　now　it　should　be　again　asked；　at　the　end　of　this　long　discussion；　where　the　line　is　to　be　drawn　between　these　two　classes　of　covenants；　the　answer　is　necessarily　vague　in　view　of　the　authorities。　The　following　propositions　may　be　of　some　service。

*A。　With　regard　to　covenants　which　go　with　the　land：

*（1。）　Where　either　by　tradition　or　good　sense　the　burden　of　the　obligation　would　be　said；　elliptically；　to　fall　on　the　land　of　the　covenantor；　the　creation　of　such　a　burden　is　in　theory　a　grant　or　transfer　of　a　partial　interest　in　＇405＇　that　land　to　the　covenantee。　As　the　right　of　property　so　created　can　be　asserted　against　every　possessor　of　the　land；　it　would　not　be　extravagant　or　absurd　to　allow　it　to　be　asserted　by　the　action　of　covenant。

*（2。）　Where　such　a　right　is　granted　to　the　owner　of　a　neighboring　piece　of　land　for　the　benefit　of　that　land；　the　right　will　be　attached　to　the　land；　and　go　with　it　into　all　hands。　The　action　of　covenant　would　be　allowed　to　assigns　not　named；　and　it　would　not　be　absurd　to　give　it　to　disseisors。

*（3。）　There　is　one　case　of　a　service；　the　burden　of　which　does　not　fall　upon　land　even　in　theory；　but　the　benefit　of　which　might　go　at　common　law　with　land　which　it　benefited。　This　is　the　case　of　singing　and　the　like　by　a　convent。　It　will　be　observed　that　the　service；　although　not　falling　on　land；　is　to　be　performed　by　a　corporation　permanently　seated　in　the　neighborhood。　Similar　cases　are　not　likely　to　arise　now。

*B。　With　regard　to　covenants　which　go　only　with　the　estate　in　the　land：

In　general　the　benefit　of　covenants　which　cannot　be　likened　to　grants；　and　the　burden　of　which　does　not　fall　on　land；　is　confined　to　the　covenantee　and　those　who　sustain　his　persona；　namely；　his　executor　or　heir。　In　certain　cases；　of　which　the　original　and　type　was　the　ancient　warranty；　and　of　which　the　modern　covenants　for　title　are　present　examples；　the　sphere　of　succession　was　enlarged　by　the　mention　of　assigns；　and　assigns　are　still　allowed　to　represent　the　original　covenantee　for　the　purposes　of　that　contract。　But　it　is　only　by　way　of　succession　that　any　other　person　than　the　party　to　the　contract　can　sue　upon　it。　Hence　the　plaintiff　must　always　be　privy　in　estate　with　the　covenantee。

＇406＇　C。　It　is　impossible；　however；　to　tell　by　general　reasoning　what　rights　will　be　held　in　English　law　to　belong　to　the　former　class；　or　where　the　line　will　be　drawn　between　the　two。　The　authorities　must　be　consulted　as　an　arbitrary　fact。　Although　it　might　sometimes　seem　that　the　test　of　the　first　was　whether　the　service　was　of　a　nature　capable　of　grant；　so　that　if　it　rested　purely　in　covenant　it　would　not　follow　the　land；　/l　/　yet　if　this　test　were　accepted；　it　has　already　been　shown　that；　apart　from　tradition；　some　services　which　do　follow　the　land　could　only　be　matter　of　covenant。　The　grant　of　light　and　air；　a　well…　established　easement；　is　called　a　covenant　not　to　build　on　the　servient　land　to　the　injury　of　the　light；　by　Baron　Parke。　/2/　And　although　this　might　be　doubted；　/3/　it　has　been　seen　that　at　least　one　well…established　easement；　that　of　fencing；　cannot　be　considered　as　a　right　granted　out　of　the　servient　land　with　any　more　propriety　than　a　hundred　other　services　which　would　be　only　matter　of　contract　if　the　law　allowed　them　to　be　annexed　to　land　in　like　manner。　The　duty　to　repair　exists　only　by　way　of　covenant；　yet　the　reasoning　of　the　leading　cases　is　drawn　from　the　law　of　easement。　On　the　other　hand；　a　covenant　by　a　lessee　to　build　a　wall　upon　the　leased　premises　was　held；　in　Spencer's　Case；　not　to　bind　assigns　unless　mentioned；　/4/　but　Lord　Coke　says　that　it　would　have　bound　them　if　it　had　purported　to。　The　analogy　of　warranty　makes　its　appearance；　and　throws　a　doubt　on　the　fundamental　principle　of　the　case。　We　can　only　say　that　the　application　＇407＇　of　the　law　is　limited　by　custom；　and　by　the　rule　that　new　and　unusual　burdens　cannot　be　imposed　on　land。

The　general　object　of　this　Lecture　is　to　discover　the　theory　on　which　a　man　is　allowed　to　enjoy　a　special　right　when　the　facts　ou