Covenants which were intended to affect the property leased and which were contained in leases creating estates less than freehold, were said at common law to run with the land and not with the reversion. This meant that the benefits and liabilities of such a covenant passed to the assignee of the lease, but not to the assignee or grantee of the reversion. Thus covenants for quiet enjoyment,1 or an option to purchase,2 or to renew,3 pass to the assignee of the lease and may be enforced by him. On the other hand, covenants to insure,4 to pay taxes,5 to repair,6 or to cultivate in a specified manner,7 or to build,8 or to pay rent,9 bind the assignee of the lease. The assignee is liable only for breaches while he holds the title to the property leased. He is not liable to the original lessor for a breach before the assignment, as for a covenant to put an oil-well down in a specified time,10 or for breach of a covenant to pay rent made before the assignment.11 If, however, he specifically assumes liability on the covenants of the original lease, he is liable to the lessor for breach before the assignment, at least in jurisdictions where one can sue on a contract for his benefit, to which he is not a party.12 Thus he may become liable for overdue rent13 or taxes.14 An assignee may discharge his liability on covenants running with the land by assigning the lease,15 unless he has specifically assumed and agreed to pay the rent stipulated in the lease.16

1 Richard v. Bent, 59 111. 38, 14 Am. Rep. 1; Donnell v. Thompson, 10 Me. 170, 25 Am. Dec. 216; Alles v. Foley, 126 Minn. 14, 147 N. W. 670; Chapman v. Kimball, 7 Neb. 399.

2Wertheimer v. Hosmer, 83 Mich. 56, 47 N. W. 47.

3 Miller v. Prescott, 163 Mass. 12, 47 Am. St. Rep. 434, 39 N. E. 409.

4 United States. Peters v. Bowman, 98 U. S. 56, 25 L. ed. 91.

Alabama. Gulf Coal & Coke Co. v. Musgrove, 195 Ala. 219, 70 So. 179.

Kentucky. Bradford v. Long, 7 Ky. (4 Bibb.), 225.

Massachusetts. Smith v. Richards, 155 Mass. 79, 28 N. E. 1132.

New Jersey. De Long v. Spring Lake Improvement Co., 74 N. J. L. 250, 66 Atl. 591.

North Dakota. Bull v. Beiseker, 16 N. D. 290, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 514, 113 N. W. 870.

Oregon. Wesco v. Kern, 36 Or. 433, 59 Pac. 548, 60 Pac. 563.

Pennsylvania. Provident Trust Co. v. Fiss, 147 Pa. St. 232, 23 Atl..560.

Vermont. Clement v. Bank, 61 Vt. 298, 4 L. R. A. 425, 17 Atl. 717.

Wisconsin. Wallace v. Pereles, 109 Wis. 316, 83 Am. St. Rep. 898, 53 L. R. A. 644, 85 N. W. 371.

Contra, by Georgia statute. Tucker v. McArthur, 103 Ga. 409, 30 S. E. 283.

1 Shelton v. Codman, 57 Mass. (3 Cush.), 318; Hamilton v. Wright, 28 Mo. 199.

2Blakeman v. Miller, 136 Cal. 138, 89 Am. St. Rep. 120, 68 Pac. 587; Page v. Hughes, 41 Ky. (2 B. Mon.), 439; Hagar v. Buck, 44 Vt. 285, 8 Am. Rep. 368.

3McClintock v. Joyner, 77 Miss. 678, 78 Am. St. Rep. 541, 27 So. 837.

4Masury v. Southworth, 9 O. S. 340.

5 Ellis v. Bradbury, 75 Cal. 234, 17 Pac. 3; Mason v. Smith, 131 Mass. 510. Craig v. Summers, 47 Minn. 189, 15 L. R. A. 236, 49 N. W. 742; West Virginia, etc., Ry. v. Mclntire, 44 W. Va. 210, 28 S. E. 696.

6 Cobura v. Goodall, 72 Cal. 498, 1 Am. St. Rep. 75, 14 Pac. 190. (Hence assignees of an undivided interest in the lease are jointly and severally liable on such covenants.) 7Gordon v. George, 12 Ind. 408.