surance, the covenant depending on the nature of the conveyance, if that were void, the covenant, which was only auxiliary, and went along with the estate, must be also void. Covenants in 98. The usual covenants in assignments of leaseAssignments of Leaseholds. hold estates, are, that the lease is valid in law, not forfeited, surrendered, or determined, or become void Staines v. Covenants for Production of Title Deeds. or voidable; that the assignor has good right to assign; that the rent has been paid, and the covenants performed, up to the time of the assignment; for quiet enjoyment during the term; free from incumbrances, without any restriction; and for further assurance. 99. The assignee is also bound to covenant with the assignor, that he will pay the rent, and perform the covenants in future; and indemnify the assignor from the payment and performance thereof; and this latter covenant must be inserted, though the assignor, from his particular situation, is not bound to covenant for the title. 100. Where the title deeds of an estate are retained by the vendor, which frequently happens; either because they relate to a larger estate than that which is sold, or for any other reasons; the purchaser is entitled to a covenant from the vendor for the production of them, whenever it shall be necessary, in support of the purchaser's title. And this covenant being real, will run with the land, and extend to all Vide Fearne's future purchasers of it. But if the deed containing such covenant be not delivered to a future purchaser, he will then be entitled to a new covenant from his vendor for the production of the title deeds. 101. Covenants for renewal have frequently been for Renewal inserted in leases; and are of two kinds; namely, covenants for granting another lease of the thing Post. 113. Covenants of Leases. demised; and covenants for renewal, not only on the expiration or surrender of the original lease, but also on the expiration or surrender of all future leases made under such a covenant, which is usually called a covenant for perpetual renewal. 102. Bridges demised a mill with the appurte- Bridges v. Hitchcock, nances, to Stapleton for 21 years; and covenanted 5 Bro. Parl. . that if the lessee, his executors, administrators, or Ca. 6. assigns, or any of them, should at any time thereafter, before the expiration of the term thereby demised, be minded to renew and take a further lease of the said premises, that then upon application made, at any time before the last six months of the said term, the lessor, his heirs or assigns, should grant such further lease as should by the lessee, his executors, administrators, or assigns, be desired, without any fine to be demanded therefore, and under the same rents and covenants only as in this lease. Upon a bill filed in the Court of Exchequer by an assignee of the lease, against the lessor, to compel him to grant a further lease under the same rents and covenants as in the first lease; the Court decreed a new lease, which was settled by the Lord Chief Baron, and contained a covenant to grant a further lease at the end of the new term. The lessor appealed from this decree to the House of Lords, insisting that it was erroneous; for that the covenant for a further lease, after the expiration of the new lease, was in the nature of a perpetuity upon the appellant's estate; and might, according to the decree, be demanded from time to time continually; which was contrary to the intent and meaning of the covenant in the first lease, and of the parties thereto. To which it was answered by the respondent, that the covenant entered into by the appellant to grant VOL. IV. I i Furnival v. Crewe, MSS. Rep. 3 Atk. 83. such further lease as should be demanded, under the same rent and covenants only as in the original. lease, was the only foundation and encouragement which the parties had for expending so much money upon the demised premises as they had done, and accordingly it was the true intent and meaning of the covenant, that the lessee should be at liberty to renew as often as he should require. The decree was affirmed. 103. Mr. Crewe, the defendant's grandfather, made a lease to one Moor for three lives, with the following covenants:-" And the said Tho. Moor, for himself, &c. covenants, grants, and agrees to and with the said John Crewe, &c. that he the said Tho. Moor, &c. shall at the death of any of the lives before mentioned, which shall first happen, pay unto the said J. Crewe, his heirs or assigns, within twelve months next ensuing such death, 687. in the name of a fine, to add one other life to the remaining two lives, and so to continue the renewing this lease or leases, paying as aforesaid to the said J. Crewe, his heirs or assigns, 687. for every life so added or renewed from time to time. And the said J. Crewe, for himself, his heirs, executors, and assigns, doth covenant and agree to and with the said T. Moor, his executors and assigns, that he the said J. Crewe, his heirs, &c. shall and will, for the consideration of the said 687. as aforesaid, to be paid to the said J. Crewe, his heirs, executors, or assigns, at Crewe Hall, or at the place where the Hall now stands, seal and duly execute one or more lease or leases, under the same rents and covenants with these presents, and thereunto add such life or lives as shall be there and at such time nominated, to be added by the said Tho. Moor, his executors or assigns, within the term or space of twelve months next after the death of any such life as aforesaid." There were two several renewals, by adding a life in 1686 and in 1709; and in 1740 the last life in the original lease dropped, one of the added lives continuing still in being. The plaintiff Furnival, who was entitled to the leases, under several assignments, brought this bill against the defendant, Mr. Crewe, for a renewal of the leases, with the same covenants for renewal as in the original leases. The question was, whether under these covenants Mr. Crewe was now compellable to renew the lease; or whether the covenants should not be restrained to renewals only upon the original lives in the first lease. Lord Hardwicke.-This bill is brought to have the benefit of two covenants contained in two several leases, made by Mr. Crewe the defendant's grandfather; the first of which leases was made when Mr. Crewe was tenant in fee of his estates, the other after a voluntary settlement, whereby Mr. Crewe was become but tenant for life: but this last lease being made for a valuable consideration, must prevail against the settlement. None of the original lives dropped during Mr. Crewe's own life, but after his death there were renewals, with the same covenants added as in the original leases; and now that all the original cestuis que vie are dead, the question arises upon the construction of these two covenants, and whether the obligation on the part of the tenant to pay the fine, and on that of the landlord to grant a new lease, was intended to be perpetual. And I am of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to a renewal of the leases, with the same covenants for renewal; and that these were intended for perpetual subsisting leases. It has been contended that the words in Moor's covenant, so to continue renewing, &c. could mean only the adding a life upon the falling in of any of the original ones, but not upon an added life. But this construction satisfies not the intent, which was not the continuing of the estate, barely by giving a life, but by filling up the estate, for it is not only said lease, but leases; and the word or, is here to be taken for and, to satisfy the intent, which was to take in the new leases, the last as well as the original one; and the covenant on the part of the lessor to grant under the same rent and covenants, takes in the covenant for renewal. The words, next after the death, are not to be confined to the lives in the original lease, but extend to any, whether in the original, or added upon renewal; and this appears from the making the fine payable at Crewe Hall, or the place where the Hall now stands; which words, though they may be said not to be of much weight, yet are an evidence of the intent, that the lease might continue so long as time endured; since neither lessor nor lessee could have it in view that Crewe Hall, the family seat, might be demolished in three lives. It has been objected that no breach could be assigned against the heir or executor of the lessor, in an action of covenant; but I think there might, either by the lessor or lessee; and if so, a court of equity may properly relieve, provided there be no objection against granting such relief; either from the nature of the covenant itself, or the condition of the person seeking the benefit of it. 1st. Because the covenant being for making an estate in land, a court of equity can give the thing itself, which is the highest and most adequate remedy; damages only being recoverable at law. 2d. Because at law the remedy could only be against the representative of the lessor, out of the lessor's assets, |