Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
- JUSTICES AT THE
- JUSTICE, SIR THOMAS GAWDY, AND THE WHOLE COURT. AND
- LORDS OF THE
- LORD OF THE MANNOR OF D. AND HIS HEIRS, LORDS OF THE MANOR
- LADY BARDOLPH
- LADY BARDOLPH,
- LADY GRANTED TO HIS WIFE
- JUSTICE, AND
- LORD ELLENBURGHROE V.
- LORD, BY APPLICATION
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Spencer's Case
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant and his spouse entered into a lease agreement by deed with a third party ("S."), demising a house and certain land for a term of 21 years. The lease included a covenant by S. to build a brick wall on part of the demised land. S. subsequently assigned his leasehold interest to a second assignee, who then assigned it to the Defendant. The Appellant brought an action of covenant against the Defendant, the assignee, for failure to construct the brick wall as agreed. The case involved extensive argument and judicial deliberation on whether such covenants run with the land and bind assignees, culminating in unanimous resolutions by the Chief Justice and the court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a covenant concerning something existing and part of the leased land at the time of demise runs with the land and binds the assignee, even without express words to that effect.
- Whether a covenant to build a new structure (not in existence at the time of demise) on the demised land binds the assignee.
- Under what circumstances covenants collateral to the land do not bind assignees.
- Whether covenants relating to personal property or goods leased run with the land and bind assignees.
- The extent to which warranties or covenants implied by words of grant or demise bind assignees and their successors.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Roe v. Hayley, 12 East 469 |
A covenant by a lessor to renew at the end of the term runs with the land and binds the grantee of the reversion. |
Supports the principle that certain covenants annexed to the land run with the estate and bind successors. |
| Middlemore v. Goodale, Cro. Car. 503; Campbell v. Lewis, 3 Barn. & Ald. 392 |
Covenants for further assurance and quiet enjoyment run with the estate. |
Reinforces that covenants related to the estate bind successors in interest. |
| Jourdain v. Wilson, 4 Barn. & Ald. 267 |
Covenant to supply demised premises with water runs with the land. |
Illustrates covenants that run with the land can be enforced by assignees. |
| Vernon v. Smith, 5 Barn. & Ald. |
Covenants to insure or rebuild premises after fire run with the land. |
Shows that covenants involving maintenance or rebuilding of demised premises bind successors. |
| Vyryan v. Arthur, 1 Barn. & Cress. 410; 2 Dow. & Ryl. 670 |
Covenant to render suit to a mill runs with the land as long as mill ownership remains the same. |
Distinguishes covenants that run with the land from those that do not based on privity and connection to the estate. |
| Mayor of Congleton v. Pattison, 10 East 130 |
Covenant not to hire workers for a mill to be erected on demised premises does not run with the land. |
Clarifies that covenants collateral to the land, even if expressly naming assignees, do not bind successors. |
| Webb v. Russell, 3 T.R. 402 |
Privity of estate is necessary for a covenant to run with the land. |
Supports the principle that the covenant must touch or concern the land and parties must have privity of estate. |
| Roach v. Wadham, 6 East 289 |
Covenant does not bind an appointee who does not take the estate to which the covenant is annexed. |
Limits the binding effect of covenants to those holding the specific estate subject to the covenant. |
| Brewer v. Hill, 2 Anstr. 413 |
Covenants concerning tithes do not run with the land. |
Distinguishes personal covenants from those annexed to land. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the nature of covenants in leasehold estates, distinguishing between those that "touch and concern" the land and those that are collateral or personal. It held that covenants concerning an existing part of the demised land at the time of the lease run with the land and bind the assignee, even absent express words. Conversely, covenants to perform acts regarding things not in existence at the time of the demise (such as building a new wall) are personal to the covenantor and do not bind assignees unless expressly stated. The court further clarified that covenants collateral to the land, such as payment of collateral sums or building on unrelated land, do not bind assignees. It recognized that covenants relating to personal property leased do not run with the land due to lack of privity and reversion. The court also examined the effect of words of grant or demise implying warranties or covenants and their binding nature on assignees and successors. The reasoning emphasized the necessity of privity of estate and the principle that only covenants annexed to or touching the land run with it, ensuring fairness and clarity in the obligations binding successors.
Holding and Implications
The court held that covenants relating to existing parts of demised land run with the land and bind assignees, even without express words, but covenants to perform acts concerning things not in existence at the time of the lease do not bind assignees unless expressly stated.
This decision clarifies the scope of covenants that run with leasehold estates, balancing the interests of lessors and assignees. It limits the binding effect of covenants to those touching or concerning the land, preventing assignees from being unfairly burdened by personal covenants. The ruling does not establish new precedent beyond these principles but affirms established doctrines as unanimously resolved by the court.
Click here to read the full judgment