the common law-第76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！


e　turn　to　the　history　of　those　remedies　for　rent　which　sounded　in　contract；　we　find　that　they　were　so　regarded。　The　actions　of　debt　and　covenant　＇391＇　could　not　be　maintained　without　privity。　In　the　ninth　year　of　Henry　VI。　/1/　it　was　doubted　whether　an　heir　having　the　reversion　by　descent　could　have　debt；　and　it　was　held　that　a　grantee　of　the　reversion；　although　he　had　the　rent；　could　not　have　that　remedy　for　it。　A　few　years　later；　it　was　decided　that　the　heir　could　maintain　debt；　/2/　and　in　Henry　VII。's　reign　the　remedy　was　extended　to　the　devisee；　/3/　who；　as　has　been　remarked　above；　seemed　more　akin　to　the　heir　than　a　grantee；　and　was　more　easily　likened　to　him。　It　was　then　logically　necessary　to　give　assigns　the　same　action；　and　this　followed。　/4/　The　privity　of　contract　followed　the　estate；　so　that　the　assignee　of　the　reversion　could　sue　the　person　then　holding　the　term。　/5/　On　like　grounds　he　was　afterwards　allowed　to　maintain　covenant。　/6/　But　these　actions　have　never　lain　for　or　against　persons　not　privy　in　estate　with　the　lessor　and　lessee　respectively；　because　privity　to　the　contract　could　never　be　worked　out　without　succession　to　the　title。　/7/

However；　all　these　niceties　had　no　application　to　the　old　freehold　rents　of　the　feudal　period；　because　the　contractual　remedies　did　not　apply　to　them　until　the　time　of　Queen　Anne。　/8/　The　freehold　rent　was　just　as　much　real　estate　as　an　acre　of　land；　and　it　was　sued　for　by　the　similar　remedy　of　an　assize；　asking　to　be　put　back　into　possession。

＇392＇　The　allowance　of　contractual　remedies　shows　that　rent　and　feudal　services　of　that　nature；　although　dealt　with　as　things　capable　of　possession；　and　looked　at　generally　from　the　point　of　view　of　property　rather　than　of　contract；　yet　approach　much　nearer　to　the　nature　of　the　latter　than　a　mere　duty　not　to　interfere　with　a　way。　Other　cases　come　nearer　still。　The　sphere　of　prescription　and　custom　in　imposing　active　duties　is　large　in　early　law。　Sometimes　the　duty　is　incident　to　the　ownership　of　certain　land；　sometimes　the　right　is；　and　sometimes　both　are；　as　in　the　case　of　an　easement。　When　the　service　was　for　the　benefit　of　other　land；　the　fact　that　the　burden；　in　popular　language；　fell　upon　one　parcel；　was　of　itself　a　reason　for　the　benefit　attaching　to　the　other。

Instances　of　different　kinds　are　these。　A　parson　might　he　bound　by　custom　to　keep　a　bull　and　a　boar　for　the　use　of　his　parish。　/1/　A　right　could　be　attached　to　a　manor　by　prescription　to　have　a　convent　sing　in　the　manor　chapel。　/2/　A　right　might　be　gained　by　like　means　to　have　certain　land　fenced　by　the　owner　of　the　neighboring　lot。　/3/　Now；　it　may　readily　be　conceded　that　even　rights　like　the　last　two；　when　attached　to　land；　were　looked　at　as　property；　and　were　spoken　of　as　the　subject　of　grant。　/4/　It　may　be　conceded　that；　in　many　cases　where　the　statement　sounds　strange　to　modern　ears；　the　obligation　was　regarded　as　failing　on　the　land　alone；　and　not　on　the　person　of　the　＇393＇　tenant。　And　it　may　be　conjectured　that　this　view　arose　naturally　and　reasonably　from　there　having　been　originally　no　remedy　to　compel　performance　of　such　services；　except　a　distress　executed　on　the　servient　land。　/1/　But　any　conjectured　distinction　between　obligations　for　which　the　primitive　remedy　was　distress　alone；　and　others；　if　it　ever　existed；　must　soon　have　faded　from　view；　and　the　line　between　those　rights　which　can　be　deemed　rights　of　property；　and　those　which　are　mere　contracts；　is　hard　to　see；　after　the　last　examples。　A　covenant　to　repair　is　commonly　supposed　to　be　a　pure　matter　of　contract。　What　is　the　difference　between　a　duty　to　repair；　and　a　duty　to　fence？　The　difficulty　remains　almost　as　great　as　ever　of　finding　the　dividing　line　between　the　competing　principles　of　transfer；　succession　on　the　one　side；　and　possession　of　dominant　land　on　the　other。　If　a　right　in　the　nature　of　an　easement　could　be　attached　to　land　by　prescription；　it　could　equally　be　attached　by　grant。　If　it　went　with　the　land　in　one　case；　even　into　the　hands　of　a　disseisor；　it　must　have　gone　with　it　in　the　other。　No　satisfactory　distinction　could　be　based　on　the　mode　of　acquisition；　/2/　nor　was　any　attempted。　As　the　right　was　not　confined　to　assigns；　there　was　no　need　of　mentioning　assigns。　/3/　In　modern　times；　at　least；　if　not　in　early　law；　such　rights　can　be　created　by　covenant　as　well　＇394＇　as　by　grant。　/1/　And；　on　the　other　hand；　it　is　ancient　law　that　an　action　of　covenant　may　be　maintained　upon　an　instrument　of　grant。　/2/　The　result　of　all　this　was　that　not　only　a　right　created　by　covenant；　but　the　action　of　covenant　itself；　might　in　such　cases　go　to　assigns；　although　not　mentioned；　at　a　time　when　such　mention　was　essential　to　give　them　the　benefit　of　a　warranty。　Logically；　these　premises　led　one　step　farther；　and　not　only　assigns　not　named；　but　disseisors；　should　have　been　allowed　to　maintain　their　action　on　the　contract；　as　they　had　the　right　arising　out　of　it。　Indeed；　if　the　plaintiff　had　a　right　which　when　obtained　by　grant　would　have　entitled　him　to　covenant；　it　was　open　to　argument　that　he　should　be　allowed　the　same　action　when　he　had　the　right　by　prescription；　although；　as　has　been　seen　in　the　case　of　rent；　it　did　not　follow　in　practice　from　a　man's　having　a　right　that　he　had　the　contractual　remedies　for　it。　/3/　Covenant　required　a　specialty；　but　prescription　was　said　to　be　a　sufficiently　good　specialty。　/4/　Where；　then；　was　the　line　to　be　drawn　between　covenants　that　devolved　only　to　successors；　and　those　that　went　with　the　land？

The　difficulty　becomes　more　striking　upon　further　examination　of　the　early　law。　For　side　by　side　with　the　personal　warranty　which　has　been　discussed　hitherto；　there　was　another　warranty　which　has　not　yet　been　mentioned　＇395＇　by　which　particular　land　alone　was　bound。　/1/　The　personal　warranty　bound　only　the　warrantor　and　his　heirs。　As　was　said　in　a　case　of　the　time　of　Edward　I。；　〃no　one　can　bind　assigns　to　warranty；　since　warranty　always　extends　to　heirs　who　claim　by　succession　and　not　by　assignment。〃　/2/　But　when　particular　land　was　bound；　the　warranty　went　with　it；　even　into　the　hands　of　the　King；　because；　as　Bracton　says；　the　thing　goes　with　its　burden　to　every　one。　/3/　Fleta　writes　that　every　possessor　will　be　held。　/4/　There　cannot　be　a　doubt　that　a　disseisor　would　have　been　bound　equally　with　one　whose　possession　was　lawful。

We　are　now　ready　for　a　case　/5/　decided　under　Edward　III。；　which　has　been　discussed　from　the　time　of　Fitzherbert　and　Coke　down　to　Lord　St。　Leonards　and　Mr。　Rawle；　which　is　still　law；　and　is　said　to　remain　still　unexplained。　/6/　It　shows　the　judges　hesitating　between　the　two　conceptions　to　which　this　Lecture　has　been　devoted。　If　they　are　understood；　I　think　the　explanation　will　be　clear。

Pakenham　brought　covenant　as　heir　of　the　covenantee　against　a　prior；　for　breach　of　a　covenant　made　by　the　defendant's　predecessor　with　the　plaintiff's　great…　grandfather；　that　the　prior　and　convent　should　sing　every　week　in　a　chapel　in　his　manor；　for　him　and　his　servants。　The　defendant　first　pleaded　that　the　plaintiff　and　his　servants　were　not　dwelling　within　the　manor；　but；　not　daring　to　＇396＇　rest　his　case　on　that；　he　pleaded　that　the　plaintiff　was　not　heir；　but　that　his　elder　brother　was。　The　plaintiff　replied　that　he　was　tenant　of　the　manor；　and　that　his　great…grandfather　enfeoffed　a　stranger；　who　enfeoffed　the　plaintiff　and　his　wife；　and　that　thus　the　plaintiff　was　tenant　of　the　manor　by　purchase；　and　privy　to　the　ancestor；　and　also　that　the　services　had　been　rendered　for　a　time　whereof　the　memory　was　not。

It　is　evident　from　these　pleadings　that　assigns　were　not　mentioned　in　the　covenant；　and　so　it　has　always　been　taken。　/1/　It　also　appears　that　the　plaintiff　was　trying　to　stand　on　two　grounds；　first；　privity；　as　descendant　and　assign　of　the　covenantee；　second；　that　the　service　was　attached　to　the　manor　by　covenant　or　by　prescription；　and　that　he　could　maintain　covenant　as　tenant　of　the　manor；　from　whichever　source　the　duty　arose。

Finchden；　J。　puts　the　case　of　parceners　making　partition；　and　one　covenanting　with　the　other　to　acquit　of　suit。　A　purchaser　has　the　advantage　of　the　covenant。　Belknap；　for　the　defendants；　agrees；　but　distinguishes。　In　that