The profits due by the land, and, consequently, mere privity of estate, as distinct from privity of contract, is sufficient to sustain the action. Accordingly, a transferee of the land, or of the particular estate therein which owes the rent, is liable in debt to the person entitled to the rent;27 and a transferee of the reversion may recover therein against the lessee or an assignee of the lessee,28 as may a transferee of the rent without the reversion.29

Debt will, moreover, lie against the original lessee, although the latter has assigned his lease, since the lessee cannot substitute another in his place without, the landlord's assent. If, however, the landlord accept the lessee's assignee as tenant, he cannot thereafter bring debt against the original lessee.30 If the lessee's interest in a part of the premises is assigned to another person, or in different parts to different persons, each of such assignees is liable in debt, by reason of privity of estate, for a proportional part of the rent.31 The assignee of the reversion cannot bring debt against the original lessee after the latter's assignment of the term, since there is, in such case, neither privity of contract nor of estate.32

27. Walker's Case, 3 Coke, 22a; Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 237, note (1); Howland v. Coffin, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 52, 12 Pick. 125, Mckeon v. Whitney, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 452.

28. Walker's Case, 3 Coke, 22a; Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 237, 1 Lev. 259; Howland v. Coffin, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 125; Patten v. Deshon, 1 Gray (Mass.) 325; Out-toun v. Dulin, 72 Md. 536, 20 Atl. 134.

29. Williams v. Hayward, 1 El. & El. 1040; Allen v. Bryan, 5 Barn. & C. 512; Ryerson v. Quack-enbush, 26 N. J. Law, 236; Demarest v. Willard, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 206; Kendall v. Carland, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 74.

30. Walker's Case, 3 Coke, 22a; Marsh v. Brace, Cro. Jac. 334; Mills v. Auriol, 1 H. Bl. 433, 440; Wadham v. Marlowe, 8 East, 314, note.

31. Gamon v. Vernon, 2 Lev. 231; Curtis v. Spitty, 1 Bing. N. C. 760; Harris v. Frank, 52 Miss. 155; St. Louis Public Schools v. Boatmen's Ins. & Trust Co., 5 Mo. App. 91. Compare Damainville v. Mann, 32 N. Y. 197.

32. Humble v. Glover, Cro. Eliz. 328; Walker's Case, 3 Coke. 22a.

An action of debt, if brought by or against one not a party to the original lease, as in the case of an action by the assignee of the lessor or against the assignee of the lessee, being based on privity of estate, has always been regarded as a "local" action, which must be brought in the county where the land lies;33 while, if brought against the original lessee by the lessor, being based on contract, it is "transitory," and may be brought where the lessee may be found, or where the contract was made.34

- Action of covenant. On the lessee's covenant to pay the rent, usually contained in the instrument of lease, an action of covenant may be brought at common law,35 and, in jurisdictions where such form of action is abolished, an equivalent action to enforce the tenant's liability on his covenant will lie.

To support the common law action of covenant there must be a technical covenant by the lessee, that is, the instrument must be sealed by him36 since the proper action on a written agreement to pay rent, not under seal, is assumpsit.

An action by the lessor against the lessee on the covenant to pay rent has been regarded as transitory, as being based purely on contract,37 and the weight

33. Bord v. Cudmore, Cro. Car. 183; Pine v. Leicester, Hob. 37; Stevenson v. Lambard, 2 East, 575; Whitaker v. Forbes, L. R. 10 C. P. 583; Bracket v. Alvord, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 18.

34. Wey v. Yally, 6 Mod. 194; Thursby v. Plant, 1 Wms. Saund. (Ed. 1871) 306-308; Bracket v. Alvord, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 18; Hen-v/ood v. Cheeseman, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 502; Chitty, Pleading (7th Ed.) 282.

35. Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 237," 1 Lev. 259, 2 Gray's Cas. 071; Cross v. United States, 14

Wall. (U. S.) 479, 20 L. Ed. 721 ; Greenleaf v. Allen, 127 Mass. 248; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, R. T. & P. Ry. Co., 164 I11. 88. Russell v. Fabyan, 28 N. H. 543, 61 Am. Dec. 629; Taylor v. De Bus, 31 Ohio St. 468.

36. .Johnson v. Muzzy, 45 Vt. 419, 12 Am. Rep. 214; Hinsdale v. Humphrey, 15 Conn. 433; Trustees of Hocking County v. Spencer, 7 Ohio (2nd pt.) 143.

37. Bulwer's Case, 7 Coke, 3a; Wey v. Yally, 6 Mod. 194; 1 Chitty, Pleading (7th Ed.) 283.

Of authority is to the same effect as regards an action by the transferee of the reversion against the original lessee, on the theory that the privity of contract is transferred by the Statute 32 Hen. VIII. c 34.38 On the other hand, an action, whether by the original lessor or his transferee, against the assignee of the lessee, has been regarded as local, as being based on privity of estate.39

- Assumpsit. An action of special assumpsit may be maintained upon the lessee's express promise to pay a certain sum as rent, provided such promise is not under seal.40

- Under the code procedure. In a large number of jurisdictions, the common law forms of action having been abolished, the statements made above as to the appropriate forms of action for the recovery of rent, and their distinguishing characteristics in this regard, have no longer any practical application, though an understanding thereof is desirable for a full comprehension of the common law view of rent. Likewise, in most states, the common law distinctions, above referred to, between local and transitory actions, have been superseded by statutes directing where suit shall be brought, as, for instance, by provisions that suit shall be brought in the county of the defendant's residence, or where he may be served with process, and so if the rent is payable in a certain county, the venue may be determined by a provision that an action on a contract shall be brought at the place of performance.

38. Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 237, 1 Lev. 259, and notes in 1 Wms. Saund. (Ed. 1871) 278, 307;