the common law-第77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！


r　has　the　advantage　of　the　covenant。　Belknap；　for　the　defendants；　agrees；　but　distinguishes。　In　that　case　the　acquittance　falls　on　the　land；　and　not　on　the　person。　/2/　（That　is　to　say；　such　obligations　follow　the　analogy　of　easements；　and；　as　the　burden　falls　on　the　quasi　servient　estate；　the　benefit　goes　with　the　dominant　land　to　assigns；　whether　mentioned　or　not；　and　they　are　not　considered　from　the　point　of　view　of　contract　at　all。　Warranty；　on　the　other　hand；　is　a　contract　pure　and　simple；　and　lies　in　the　blood；falls　on　the　person；　not　on　the　land。　/3/）

Finchden：　a　fortiori　in　this　case；　for　there　the　action　＇397＇　was　maintained　because　the　plaintiff　was　tenant　of　the　land　from　which　the　suit　was　due；　and　here　he　is　tenant　of　the　manor　where　the　chapel　is。

Wichingham；　J。：　If　the　king　grants　warren　to　another　who　is　tenant　of　the　manor；　he　shall　have　warren；　&c。；　but　the　warren　will　not　pass　by　the　grant　＇of　the　manor＇；　because　the　warren　is　not　appendant　to　the　manor。　No　more　does　it　seem　the　services　are　here　appendant　to　the　manor。

Thorpe；　C。　J。；　to　Belknap：　〃There　are　some　covenants　on　which　no　one　shall　have　an　action；　but　the　party　to　the　covenant；　or　his　heir；　and　some　covenants　have　inheritance　in　the　land；　so　that　whoever　has　the　land　by　alienation；　or　in　other　manner；　shall　have　action　of　covenant；　＇or；　as　it　is　stated　in　Fitzherbert's　Abridgment；　/1/　the　inhabitants　of　the　land　as　well　as　every　one　who　has　the　land；　shall　have　the　covenant；＇　and　when　you　say　he　is　not　heir；　he　is　privy　of　blood；　and　may　be　heir：　/2/　and　also　he　is　tenant　of　the　land；　and　it　is　a　thing　which　is　annexed　to　the　chapel；　which　is　in　the　manor；　and　so　annexed　to　the　manor；　and　so　he　has　said　that　the　services　have　been　rendered　for　all　time　whereof　there　is　memory；　whence　it　is　right　this　action　should　be　maintained。〃　Belknap　denied　that　the　plaintiff　counted　on　such　a　prescription；　but　Thorpe　said　he　did；　and　we　bear　record　of　it；　and　the　case　was　adjourned。　/3/

It　will　be　seen　that　the　discussion　followed　the　lines　marked　out　by　the　pleading。　One　judge　thought　that　＇398＇　the　plaintiff　was　entitled　to　recover　as　tenant　of　the　manor。　The　other　puisne　doubted；　but　agreed　that　the　case　must　be　discussed　on　the　analogy　of　easements。　The　Chief　Justice；　after　suggesting　the　possibility　of　sufficient　privity　on　the　ground　that　the　plaintiff　was　privy　in　blood　and　might　be　heir；　turns　to　the　other　argument　as　more　promising；　and　evidently　founds　his　opinion　upon　it。　/1/　It　would　almost　seem　that　he　considered　a　prescriptive　right　enough　to　support　the　action；　and　it　is　pretty　clear　that　he　thought　that　a　disseisor　would　have　had　the　same　rights　as　the　plaintiff。

In　the　reign　of　Henry　IV。；　another　case　/2/　arose　upon　a　covenant　very　like　the　last。　But　this　time　the　facts　were　reversed。　The　plaintiff　counted　as　heir；　but　did　not　allege　that　he　was　tenant　of　the　manor。　The　defendant；　not　denying　the　plaintiff's　descent；　pleaded　in　substance　that　he　was　not　tenant　of　the　manor　in　his　own　right。　The　question　raised　by　the　pleadings；　therefore；　was　whether　the　heir　of　the　covenantee　could　sue　without　being　tenant　of　the　manor。　If　the　covenant　was　to　be　approached　from　the　side　of　contract；　the　heir　was　party　to　it　as　representing　the　covenantee。　If；　on　the　other　hand；　it　was　treated　as　amounting　to　the　grant　of　a　service　like　an　easement；　it　would　naturally　go　with　the　manor　if　made　to　the　lord　of　the　manor。　It　seems　to　have　been　thought　that　such　a　covenant　might　go　either　way；　according　as　it　was　made　to　the　tenant　of　the　manor　or　to　a　stranger。　Markham；　one　of　the　judges；　says：　〃In　a　writ　of　covenant　one　must　be　privy　to　the　covenant　if　he　would　have　a　writ　of　covenant　or　aid　by　the　covenant。　But；　peradventure；　if　the　covenant　＇399＇　had　been　made　with　the　lord　of　the　manor；　who　had　inheritance　in　the　manor；　ou　issint　come　determination　poit　estre　fait；　it　would　be　otherwise；〃　which　was　admitted。　/1/　It　was　assumed　that　the　covenant　was　not　so　made　as　to　attach　to　the　manor；　and　the　court；　observing　that　the　service　was　rather　spiritual　than　temporal；　were　inclined　to　think　that　the　heir　could　sue。　/2/　The　defendant　accordingly　over　and　set　up　a　release。　It　will　be　seen　how　fully　this　agrees　with　the　former　case。

The　distinction　taken　by　Markham　is　stated　very　clearly　in　a　reported　by　Lord　Coke。　In　the　argument　of　Chudleigh's　Case　the　line　is　drawn　thus：　〃Always；　the　warranty　as　to　voucher　requires　privity　of　estate　to　which　it　was　annexed；〃　（i。e。　succession　to　the　original　covenantee；）　〃and　the　same　law　of　a　use　。。。。　But　of　things　annexed　to　land；　it　is　otherwise；　as　of　commons；　advowsons；　and　the　like　appendants　or　appurtenances　。。。。　So　a　disseisor；　abator；　intruder；　or　the　lord　by　escheat；　&c。；　shall　have　them　as　things　annexed　to　the　land。　So　note　a　diversity　between　a　use　or　warranty；　and　the　like　things　annexed　to　the　estate　of　the　land　in　privity；　and　commons；　advowsons；　and　other　hereditaments　annexed　to　the　possession　of　the　land。〃　/3/　And　this；　it　seems　to　me；　is　the　nearest　approach　which　has　ever　been　made　to　the　truth。

Coke；　in　his　Commentary　on　Littleton　（385　a）；　takes　a　distinction　between　a　warranty；　which　binds　the　party　to　yield　lands　in　recompense；　and　a　covenant　annexed　to　the　land；　which　is　to　yield　but　damages。　If　Lord　Coke　had　＇400＇　meant　to　distinguish　between　warranties　and　all　covenants　which　in　our　loose　modern　sense　are　said　to　run　with　the　land；　this　statement　would　be　less　satisfactory　than　the　preceding。

A　warranty　was　a　covenant　which　sometimes　yielded　but　damages；　and　a　covenant　in　the　old　law　sometimes　yielded　land。　In　looking　at　the　early　cases　we　are　reminded　of　the　still　earlier　German　procedure；　in　which　it　did　not　matter　whether　the　plaintiff's　claim　was　founded　on　a　right　of　property　in　a　thing；　or　simply　on　a　contract　for　it。　/1/　Covenant　was　brought　for　a　freehold　under　Edward　I。；　/2/　and　under　Edward　III。　it　seems　that　a　mill　could　be　abated　by　the　same　action；　when　maintained　contrary　to　an　easement　created　by　covenant。　/3/　But　Lord　Coke　did　not　mean　to　lay　down　any　sweeping　doctrine；　for　his　conclusion　is；　that　〃a　covenant　is　in　many　cases　extended　further　than　the　warrantie。〃　Furthermore；　this　statement；　as　Lord　Coke　meant　it；　is　perfectly　consistent　with　the　other　and　more　important　distinction　between　warranties　and　rights　in　the　nature　of　easements　or　covenants　creating　such　rights。　For　Lord　Coke's　examples　are　confined　to　covenants　of　the　latter　sort；　being　in　fact　only　the　cases　just　stated　from　the　Year　Books。

Later　writers；　however；　have　wholly　forgotten　the　distinction　in　question；　and　accordingly　it　has　failed　to　settle　the　disputed　line　between　conflicting　principles。　Covenants　which　started　from　the　analogy　of　warranties；　and　others　to　which　was　applied　the　language　and　reasoning　of　easements；　have　been　confounded　together　under　the　title　of　＇401＇　covenants　running　with　the　land。　The　phrase　〃running　with　the　land〃　is　only　appropriate　to　covenants　which　pass　like　easements。　But　we　can　easily　see　how　it　came　to　be　used　more　loosely。

It　has　already　been　shown　that　covenants　for　title；　like　warranties；　went　only　to　successors　of　the　original　covenantee。　The　technical　expression　for　the　rule　was　that　they　were　annexed　to　the　estate　in　privity。　Nothing　was　easier　than　to　overlook　the　technical　use　of　the　word　〃estate；〃　and　to　say　that　such　covenants　went　with　the　land。　This　was　done；　and　forthwith　all　distinctions　became　doubtful。　It　probably　had　been　necessary　to　mention　assigns　in　covenants　for　title；　as　it　certainly　had　been　to　give　them　the　benefit　of　the　ancient　warranty；　/1/　for　this　seems　to　have　been　the　formal　mark　of　those　covenants　which　passed　only　to　privies。　But　it　was　not　necessary　to　mention　assigns　in　order　to　attach　easements　and　the　like　to　land。　Why　should　it　be　necessary　for　one　covenant　running　with　the　land　more　than　another？　and　if　necessary　for　one；　why　not　for　all？　/2/　The　necessity　of　such　mention　in　modern　times　has　been　supposed　to　be　governed　by　a　fanciful　rule　of　Lord　Coke's。　/3/　On　the　other　hand；　the　question　is　raised　whether　covenants　which　should　pass　irrespective　of　privity　are　not　governed　by　the　same　rule　which　governs　warranties。

Th