Sale of land leased for years, where succession duty payable at end of lease.

Chain between the vendor and the occupant have been discovered.

(c) Hunt v. Luck, 1901, 1 Ch. 45, 53.

(d) See above, pp. 33, 43.

(e) Stats. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27. ss. 9,:!1 . 37 & 38 Vict. c. .57, ss. 1, 9; see Doe d. Angell v. Anqell, 9 Q. B. 328, 355 - 359; Williams v. Pott, L. R. 12 Eq. 149. But in the case of mere nonpayment of the rent for twelve years or more the vendor's title will not have been affected, though the arrears recoverable will be limited: see Grant x. Ellis, 9 M. & W. 113, 126, 127; Archbold v. Seully, 9 H. L. C. 360, 375; Wms. Real Prop. 581, 583, and n. (A), 21st ed. As to the case in which a good title has been acquired under the Statute of Limitations as against the lessee, see Walter v. Yalden, 1902, 2 K B. 304.

(f) Where a succession consists of a beneficial interest in possession in lands let at a ground rent by a lease not granted by the successor himself, the succession duty in respect of the increased value accruing on the determination of the lease need not be paid till then; stat. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51, s. 20; see the chapter on the Death Duties in vol. ii.

(g) Re Kidd and Gibbon's Contract, 1893, 1 Ch. 695.

Purchaser should ascertain whether any duty so remains payable.

Reversion duty.

Here the reader may be reminded that by a grant of the freehold reversion on a lease for years the rent reserved (which is incident to the reversion) passes to the grantee at common law, and, since statute 4 & 5 Anne, c. 3 (m), without the necessity of any attornment by the tenant; and the grantee may distrain or sue for the rent accordingly (n). By statute 32 Hen. VIII.

Effect of grant of reversion.

(h) Re Weston and Thomas's Contract, 1907, 1 Ch. 244; see below, Chap. XII. Sec.4.

(i) See the three preceding notes.

(k) See Stat. 10 Edw. VII. c. 8, 88. 13, 14, 22 (1). And the purchaser of the reversion on a mining lease will have to bear the mineral rights duty; see 20 24.

(l) See above, p. 176

(m) [C. 1G in Ruffhead] s. 9: see Allcock v.Moorhouse,9 Q. B. D. 366.

(n) Litt. ss. 58, 72. 213, 214, 228, 229, 572; Bug. V. & P Dart. V. & P. 812, 5th ed.; 914.

C. 34, the grantee of such a reversion is enabled to sue upon such of the lessee's covenants contained in the lease as "touch or concern" the land demised (o), and also to take advantage of any condition of re-entry contained in the lease for non-payment of rent or breach of covenant (p). This statute, however, does not enable the grantee of the reversion to sue upon any covenant by the lessee which is collateral, and does not touch or concern the land demised (q), or to sue at law upon any agreement to be performed by a lessee and contained in a lease not made by deed (r). But in consequence of the doctrine introduced since the commencement of the Judicature Acts (s) that, where land is held under an agreement for a lease of which either landlord or tenant can enforce specific performance, the party so entitled is to be treated, in all Courts having jurisdiction to decree specific performance of the contract, as holding the land as landlord or tenant thereof at law upon the terms of the agreement (t), it has been decided that, where land is held for a term of years under a contract not made by deed but specifically enforceable by the landlord, and the landlord assigns the reversion with the benefit of the contract, the assignee is entitled to enforce all stipulations by the lessee contained in the contract and relating to the land demised as effectually as if such stipulations had been expressed in covenants contained in a lease by deed (u).

Grantee's right to enforce lessee's covenants and conditions.

6th ed.; 822, 7th ed.; Wms. Real Prop. 340, 21st ed.

(o) Spencer's case, 5 Rep. 16, 18; Sag. V. & P. 582, 583; 2 Dart, V. & P. 814, 5th ed.; 916, 6th ed.; 824, 7th ed.

(p) Co. Litt. 215; Wms. Real Prop. 338, 512, 513, 21st ed.

(q) 5 Rep. 18; Sag. V. & P. 583; and see Webb v. Russell, 3 T. R. 393; Dewar v. Goodman, 1909, A. C. 72; Ricketts v. Enfield Churchwardens, 1909, 1 Ch. 544.

(r) Standen v. Christmas, 10 Q. B. 135; Bickford v. Parson, 5 C. B. 920.

(s) Stats. 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 83; 38 & 39 Vict, c 77.

(t) Walsh v. Lonsdale, 21 Ch. D. 9; Furness v. Bond, 4 Times L. R. 457; Lowther v. Heaver, 41 Ch. D. 248, 264; Crump v. Temple, 7 Times L. R. 120; Foster v. Reeves, 1892, 2 Q. B. 255; Wms. Real Prop. 503, 21st ed.

As regards leases made after the year 1881, the Conveyancing Act of 1881 (x) provides that the rent thereby reserved and the benefit of the lessees' covenants therein contained and having reference to the subject-matter thereof, and every condition of re-entry and other conditions therein contained shall be annexed to the reversionary estate in the land, immediately expectant on the term thereby granted (notwithstanding severance of that reversionary estate), and shall be capable of being recovered and enforced by the person from time to time entitled, subject to the term, to the income of the whole or any part of the land leased. The chief effect of the first part of this enactment is to enable the person seised of the legal estate in reversion in land leased under some statutory power to sue upon the lessee's covenants or a condition of re-entry contained in the lease. Thus where land is leased by a mortgagor under the power of leasing given by the Conveyancing Act of 1881 (y), the mortgagee is enabled to sue on the lessee's covenants and conditions contained in the lease (a). So where a lease is granted by a legal or an equitable tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, 1882 (a), the right to recover the rent and sue on the lessee's covenants and conditions is annexed to the legal estate in reversion on the term granted. And the enactment quoted applies equally to leases made in exercise of the right of alienation incident to the lessor's estate (b), and to those granted under express powers of leasing conferred by means of the Statute of Uses (c) or by will: though as to these it hardly seems to have extended the previous law (d). But the last part of this enactment invests the person for the time being entitled to the income of the land leased (in that capacity) with a new and independent remedy; and it has been held that it enables a mortgagor in possession (who has received no notice from the mortgagee of intention to enter into receipt of the rents) to sue upon the lessee's covenants contained in a lease made by him before the mortgage (e). The same construction has been placed on this enactment with respect to agreements for leases (f) as has been applied to the statute of Henry VIII. (g).