(p) Cox v. Bishop, (1857) 8 D. M. & G. 815; 26 L. J. Ch. 389; see Wright v. Pitt, (1870) 12 Eq. 408; 40 L. J. Ch. 558; Ramage v. Womack, 1900, 1 Q. B. 116; 69 L. J. Q. B. 40.

(q) As to redemption of quit-rents, etc, see L. P. Act, 1925, s. 191.

(r) Moxhay v. Inderwick, (1847) 1 De G. & S. 708; Re Poole and Clarke, 1904, 2 Ch. 173; 73 L. J. Oh. 612; and see Reckitt v. Cody, 1920, 2 Ch. 452.

(s) Lukey v. Higgs, (1854) 1 Jur. N. S. 200; 24 L. J. Ch. 495.

(t) L. C. Act, 1925, a. 13 (2).

Where the contract for sale provided that the conveyance should be made subject to certain specified stipulations as to the mode of building upon the land, and also to " a covenant on the part of the purchaser, his heirs and assigns, and proper provisions for securing the due observance and performance thereof," it was held that the conveyance should contain, not only the covenant, but also a power for the vendor or his representatives to enter and remove any buildings erected in breach of such covenant, and to retain possession until payment of the consequent expenses; but that he was not entitled to have a term of years, or a rent-charge, limited to a trustee by way of security for the-performance of the covenant (y).

Agreement against using land in specified manner - performance of, how to be secured in conreyance.

(u) L. P. Act, 1925, s. 196 (1).

(x) Re Forney and Hollebone's Contract, 1927, 2 Ch. 379.

Under an agreement to purchase the minerals under a given surface, the price to be payable by instalments, and the payments to be accelerated if more than a given quantity of minerals be gotten from time to time, the vendor is entitled to a covenant in the conveyance, reserving to him a right of entry for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the workings (z).

Vendor of minerals entitled to power to enter and ascertain state of workings.

Under an agreement to purchase land in consideration of a life annuity, "to be charged on the land," the vendor is entitled to, not only the charge, but also the purchaser's covenant for payment (a).

Purchaser in consideration of annuity, covenants for payments.

A purchaser who accepts the benefit of the conveyance, is usually bound both at Law and in Equity by the covenants on his part therein contained, though he does not execute it (6), and statutory covenants implied on ,the part of a grantee under s. 77 of the L. P. Act, 1925, appear to be enforceable notwithstanding the grantee's non-execution of the conveyance (c).

Purchaser, when bound in Equity by covenants, although he do not execute.

The question what covenants ought to be inserted in a conveyance, may now be decided on a summons (d) under s. 49 of the L. P. Act, 1925, which re-enacts s. 9 of the V. & P. Act, 1874.

Question as to proper covenants how decided.

(y) Ex p. Ralph, (1845) De G. 219; see the form given, p. 228.

(z) Blakesley v. Whieldon, (1841) 1 Ha. 176; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 164.

(a) Bower v. Cooper, (1843) 2 Ha. 408; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 287; Remington v. Deverall, (1795) 2 Anst. 550; Dixon v. Gayfere, (1853) 17 Beav. 421; (1855) 21 Beav. 118; (1857) 1 D. & J. 655.

(b) Shep. T. 177; Willson v. Leonard, (1840) 3 Beav. 373. Cf. Aspden v. Seddon, 1 Ex. D. 496, 509.

(c) As to covenants between lessor and lessee, see L. P. Act, 1925, ss. 141, 142; 1 Wolst. & Cherry, 11th ed. p. 372 et seq.

(d) Re Gray and Metr. R. Co., (1881) 44 L. T. 567; Re Mordy and Cowman, (1884) 51 L. T. 721; Re Anderton and Milner, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 476; 59 L. J. Ch. 765; Re Lander and Bagley, 1892, 3 Ch. 41; 61 h. J. Ch. 707; Re Birmingham, etc. Co. and Allday, 1893, 1 Ch. 342; 62 L. J. Ch. 90; Re Wallis and Barnard, 1890, 2 Ch. 515; 68 L. J. Ch. 753; Re Hughes and Ashley, 1900, 2 Ch. 595; 69 L. J. Ch. 741; Re Poole and Clarke's Contract, 1904, 2 Ch. 173.

Under s. 59 (2) of the L. P. Act, 1925, which replaces s. 4 of the R. P. Act, 1845, the word "give" or the word "grant" in any deed executed after the 1st October, 1845, is not to imply any covenant at Law, save where otherwise provided by statute (e). In a conveyance under the L. C. C. Act, 1845 (f), by the promoters of the undertaking, the word "grant" is to operate as covenants for title, unless limited by express words contained in the conveyance; so, in a conveyance to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty under the Queen Anne's Bounty Act, 1838, s. 22, the ordinary covenants for title are to be implied, unless such implication is expressly negatived.

The word "give" or "grant" not to imply a covenant.

The word "demise" or the word "let" in a lease for years still operate as an implied covenant for quiet enjoyment (g), and even (it seems) as a covenant for title during the continuance of the lessor's estate (h), but this implication is negatived if an express covenant is inserted (i). If the lease is by parol, a covenant for quiet enjoyment, but not a covenant for title, is implied (k).

The word "demise" implies a covenant for title.

If a dwelling-house (l) is let for habitation, at a rent in London of 40l. or less and elsewhere of 26l. or less, there is implied a condition that the house is, and an undertaking that it will be kept by the landlord, in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation; but this implication is excluded where the lease is for at least three years upon the terms that the lessee is to put the house into a condition reasonably fit for habitation, and the lease is not determinable before the three years (m). This section does not, however, apply to certain houses in comparatively rural areas, which were let before the 31st July, 1923, at a rent exceeding 16l. (n).

Fitness for human habitation.

(e) As to such words not amounting to a personal covenant when used in the grant of a rent-charge, see Monypenny v. M., (1859) 3 D. & J. 572; (1861) 9 H. L. C. 114. See, as to the effect of these words formerly, Co. Litt. 384a, n.