An estate for years may always be assigned by the owner thereof, unless this power is expressly restrained,50 and the absence of the word "assigns" in the

44. Walker's Case, 3 Coke, 22 a; Ards v. Watkin, Cro. Eliz. 637, 651; Thursby v. Plant, 1 Wms. Saund. 237, 1 Lev. 359; Allen v. Bryan, 5 Barn. & C. 512; How-land v. Coffin, 29 Mass. (12 Pick.) 125; Patten v. Deshon, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 325; Outtoun v. Dulin, 72 Md. 536, 20 Atl. 134. That recovery in an action of debt for rent is based on privity of estate, see post Sec. 414 notes 26-29.

45. Humble v. Glover, Cro. Eliz. 328; Walker's Case, 3 Coke, 22 a. See Allcock v. Moorhouse, 9 Q. B. Div. 366.

46. Y. B. 5 Hen. 7, 19a. See Shinn v. Guyton & H. Mule Co.. 109 Mo. App. 557, 83 S. W. 1015.

47. Evans v. Enloe, 70 Wis. 345, 34 N. W. 918, 36 N. W. 22.

48. Page v. Esty, 54 Me. 319.

49. Post Sec. 56.

50. Nave v. Berry, 22 Ala. 382; Robinson v. Perry, 21 Ga. 183, 68 Am. Dec. 455; Kew v. Trainor, 150 111. 150, 37 N. E. 223; Cul-breth v. Smith, 69 Md. 450, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 538, 16 Atl. 112; Gould v. Eagle Creek School Dist., 8 Minn. 427; Crowe v. Riley, 63 Ohio St. 1, 57 N. E. 956.

In Nassau Hotel Co. v. Barnett & Barse Corp., 162 N. Y. App. Div. 381, 147 N. Y. Supp. 283, it was held that the lessee could not assign because, the rent being based on the lessee's profits from the

Real Property.

[Sec. 54 lease is immaterial.51 The lessor may, however, either by proviso or by covenant, restrain assignments by the lessee, this being done usually by inserting in the lease a condition that, on breach of such covenant, or on assignment, the lease shall be void, or that the lessor shall have a right of re-entry.52 If the restriction consists merely of a covenant against assignment, without any right of re-entry for breach, the only remedy of the lessor will be an action of damages for breach of the covenant,53 and in any case, it seems, the fact that an assignment involves a breach of a covenant or condition should not affect the validity of the assignment.54 property, a hotel, the landlord had an interest in the lessee's retention of the premises. The court ignores the fact that the leasehold interest is an estate in the land, and merely says that there was a contract of a personal nature such as cannot be assigned. The decision is, it is submitted, erroneous.

51. Church v. Brown, 15 Ves. Jr. 258, 264; Spear v. Fuller, 8 N. H. 174, 28 Am. Dec. 391; Rickard v. Dana, 74 Vt. 74, 52 Atl. 113.

52. See 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 152.

But though on "a lease for years, the lessor can impose a condition against alienation upon the lessee, the lessee, upon making an assignment, cannot impose such a condition upon his assignee, for the lessee is transferring his whole interest, which the lessor is not." Gray, Restraints on Alienation, Sec. 27, citing Co. Litt. 223a; Potter v. Crouch, 141 U. S. 296, 317, 35 L. Ed. 721. See post, Sec. 592 (d).

53. Paul v. Nurse, 8 Barn & C. 486; In re Pennewell, 55 C. C.

A. 571, 119 Fed. 139; Randol v. Tatum, 98 Cal. 390, 33 Pac. 433; Kew v. Trainor, 150 111. 150, 37 N. E. 223; Eldredge v. Bell, 64 Iowa 125, 19 N. W. 879; Spear v. Fuller, 8 N. H. 174, 28 Am. Dec. 391; Den v. Post, 25 N. J. L. 285.

54. Hague v. Ahrens, 3 C. C. A. 426, 53 Fed. 58; Shirk v. Adams, 64 C. C. A. 643, 130 Fed. 441; Betts v. Dick, 1 .Pen. (Del.) 268; Sexton v. Chicago Storage Co., 129 111. 318, 16 Am. St. Rep. 274, 21 N. E. 920; Taylor v. Marshall, 255 111. 545, 99 N. E. 638; Bemis v. Wilder, 100 Mass. 446; Meyer v. Alliance Inv. Co., 84 N. J. L. 450, 87 Atl. 476, 86 N. J. L. 694, 92 Atl. 1086; Sayles v. Kerr, 4 App. Div. 150, 38 N. Y. Supp. 880; McGhee & Co. v. Cox, 116 Va. 718, 82 S. E. 701; Putney Bros. Co. v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co., 134 Wis. 379, 114 N. W. 809. And see cases cited in next preceding note.

But see Springer v. Chicago Real Estate Loan & Trust Co., 202 111. 17, G6 N. E. 850; Reid v. Weissner & Sons Brewing Co., 88 Md. 243, 40 Atl. 877; Ress v. AnCovenants and conditions against assignment have been strictly construed by the courts,55 and have been held not to extend to assignments by operation of law,56 as on the bankruptcy of the lessee,57 or on execution against him,58 unless made expressly applicable to such an assignment.59 Occasionally a stipulation against assignment or subleasing has been regarded as not applying to an assignment or sublease covering a part only of the premises included in the original lease.60 A stipulation against assignment is not violated by a sublease61 and conversely a stipulation against subleasing is not violated by an assignment.62 drews, 169 Mo. 177, 69 S. W. 4; Emery v. Hill, 67 N. H. 330, 39 Atl. 266.

55. Crusoe v. Bugby, 3 Wils. 234, 2 W. Blackst. 766; Church v. Brown, 15 Ves. Jr. 258; Randol v. Scott, 110 Cal. 590, 42 Pac. 976; Riggs v. Pursell, 66 N. Y. 193.

56. Farnum v. Hefner, 79 Cal. 575, 12 Am. St. Rep. 174, 21 Pac. 955; Smith v. Putnam, 3 Pick. Mass. 221; White v. Huber Drug Co., 190 Mich. 212, 157 N. W. 60; Jackson V. Corliss, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 531; Charles v. Byrd, 29 S. Car. 544, 2 L. R. A. 212, 8 S. E. 1; Zwietusch v. Luehring, 156 Wis. 96, 144 N. W. 257.

57. Gazlay v. Williams, 77 C. C. A. 662, 147 Fed. 678, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1199; Bemis v. Wilder, 100 Mass. 446; In re Riggs (1901), 2 K. B. 16.

58. Doe d. Mitchinson v. Carter, 8 Term. R. 57, 300; Farnum v. Hefner, 79 Cal. 575, 12 Am. St. Rep. 174, 21 Pac. 955; Jackson v. Silvernail, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 278.

59. Roe d. Hunter v. Galliers, 2 Term. R. 133; Platt v. Johnson,

168 Pa. 47, 47 Am. St. Rep. 877, 31 Atl. 935.

60. Randol v. Scott, 110 Cal. 590, 42 Pac. 976; Roosevelt v. Hopkins, 33 N. Y. 81; Leduke v. Barnett, 47 Mich. 158, 10 N. W. 182; Carlin v. Harris. 100 Md. 49, 59 Atl. 122.

Contra, Emery v. Hill, 67 N. H. 330, 39 Atl. 266; Varley v. Cop-pard, L. R. 7 C. P. 505; Green-slade v. Tapscott, 1 Cromp. M. & R. 55.