79. Ante Sec. 53(c).

80. Co. Litt. 215a; Attoe v. Hemmings, 2 Bulst. 281; Burton v. Barclay, 7 Bing. 745.

81. Ards v. Watkin, Cro. Eliz. 637, 651; Twynam v. Pickard, 2 Barn. & Ald. 105; Leiter v. Pike, 127 111. 287, 20 N. E. 23; Ellis v. Bradbury, 75 Cal. 234, 17 Pac. 3; Harris v. Frank & Reinach, 52 Miss. 155; Cox v. Fenwick, 4 Bibb. (Ky.) 538.

82. Roberts v. Holland [1893] 1 Q. B. 665; Babcock v. Scoville, 56 111. 461; Damainville v. Mann,

32 N. Y. 197, 88 Am. Dec. 324; As to the extent of the liability of the assignee of a partial interest, see 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 158a (2) (m).

83. Frederick v. Callahan, 40 Iowa, 311; Masury v. Southworth' 9 Ohio St. 340; Ecke v. Fetzer, 65 Wis. 55, 26 N. W. 266; Purvis v. Shuman, 27a 111. 286, 112, N. E. 679 (semble); See Minshull v. Oakes, 2 Hurl. & N. 793, per Pollock, C. B.

84. Ambrose v. Fraser, 12 Ont. 459, 14 Ont. 551; Stockett v. Howadhered to.85

- (g) Breaches prior to transfer. The transferee is not entitled to recover for breaches which occurred before the transfer,86 unless an intention appears to include in the transfer the right of action on account of such breach.87 A transferee is, morever, not liable on account of a breach which occurred before the transfer, except in so far as such breach may be continuous in its nature,88 or unless he assumes such liability.89

- (h) Reassignment. The liability of the assignee of the leasehold on the covenants entered into by the lessee, though based primarily on "privity of contract," as existing only by reason of such covenants, is also, in a sense, based on privity of estate, as being imposed on him by reason of his ownership of the leaseard, 34 Md. 121; Bailie v. Rodway, 27 Wis. 172.

85. Doughty v. Bowman. 11 Q B. 444; Grey v. Cuthbertson, 4 Doug. 351, 2 Chit. 482; Etowah Min. Co. v. Wills Valley Min. & Mfg. Co., 121 Ala. 672, 25 So. 720; Bailey v. Richardson, 66 Cal. 416, 5 Pac. 910; Hansen v. Meyer, 81 111. 321, 25 Am. Rep. 282; Coffin v. Talman, 8 N. Y. 465; Fisher's Ex'rs v. Lewis, 1 Clark (Pa.) 422; Bream v. Dickerson, 21 Tenn. (2 Humph) 126.

In Peters v. Stone, 193 Mass. 179, 79 N. E. 336; Masury v. South-worth, 9 Ohio St. 340; Sexauer v. Wilson, 136 Iowa 357, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 185, 15 Ann. Cas. 54, 113 N. W. 941; the requirement was apparently regarded as applicable only in so far as an intention to bind assigns did not otherwise appear.

86. Lewes v. Ridge, Cro. Eliz 863; Cohen v. Tannar [1900] 2 Q

B. 609; Roberts v. Lehl, 27 Colo. App. 351, 149 Pac. 851; Gerzebek v. Lord, 33 N. J. L. 240; Coffin Talman, 8 N. Y. 465; Shelby v. Hearne, 14 Tenn. (6 Yerg.) 512.

87. See Indianapolis Natural Gas Co. v. Pierce. 25 Ind. App. 116, 56 N. E. 137; Outtoun v. Dulin, 72 Md. 536, 20 Atl. 134.

88. St. Saviour's Church v. Smith, 3 Burrow, 1271; Wilcox T. Kehoe, 124 Ga. 484, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 466, 4 Ann. Cas. 437, 52 S. E. 896; Gerzebek v. Lord, 33 N. J. L. 240; Astor v. Hoyt, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 603, 618; Mirick v. Bashford, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 191.

89. See Rawlings v. Duvail. 4 Har. & McH. (Md.) 1; Fontaine v. Schulenburg & Boeckler Lumber Co., 109 Mo. 55, 32 Am. St. Rep. 648, 18 S. W. 1147; Woodland Oil Co. v. Crawford. 55 Ohio St. 161, 34 L. R. A. 62; 44 N. E. 1093; Farmers' Bank v. Mutual Assur. Soc. 4 Leigh (Va.) 69.

90. That his liability is based on privity of estate, see Barker v. Darner, Carth. 182; Stevenson v. Lambard, 2 East, 575; Copeland v. Stephens, 1 Barn. & Ald. 593, 607;, Paul v. Nurse, 8 Barn. & C. 486; Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 223, 5 Pac. 104; Hintze v. Thomas, 7 Md. 346; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers, 166,111. 361, 38 L. R. A. 624, 46 N. E. 1105; Bowdre v. Hampton, 6 Rich. Law (S. C.) 208.

91. Pitcher v. Tovey, 1 Salk. 81; Paul v. Nurse, 8 Barn. & C. 486; Johnson v. Sherman, 15 Cal. 287, 76 Am. Dec. 481; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers, 166 111. 361, 38 L. R. A. 624, 46 N. E. 1105; Trabue v. McAdams, 71 Ky. (8 Bush) 78; Consumers' Ice Co. v. Bixler, 84 Md. 437, 35 Atl. 1086; Bell v. American Protective League, 163 Mass. 558, 47 Am. St. Rep. 481, 40 N. E. 857; Meyer v. Alliance Inv. Co., 86 N. J. L. 694, 92 Atl. 1086, aff'g 84 N. J. L. 450, 87 Atl. 476; Durand v. Curtis, 57 N. Y. 7; Tyler Commercial College v.

Stapleton, 33 Okla. 305, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162 Ann. Cas. 1916E, 837, 125 Pac. 443; Washington Natural Gas Co. v. Jonnson, 123 Pa. 576, 10 Am. St. Rep. 553, 16 Atl. 799; State v. Martin, 82 Tenn. (14 Lea) 92, 52 Am. Rep. 167.

92. Taylor v. Shum, 1 Bos. & P. 21; Valiant v. Dodomede, 2 Atk. 546; Lekeux v. Nash, 2 Strange, 1221; Barnfather v. Jordan, 2 Doug. 452; Johnson v. Sherman, 15 Cal. 287, 76 Am. Dec. 481; Johnston v. Bates, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. (16 Jones & S.) 180; Goss v. Woodland Fire Brick Co., 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 167.

93. McBee v. Sampson, 66 Fed. 416; Philpot v. Hoare, 2 Atk. 219, Amb. 485. See Hopkinson v. Lov-ering, 11 Q. B. Div. 97; Hartman v. Thompson, 104 Md. 389, 118 Am. St. Rep. 422, 65 Atl. 117; In 2 Platt, Leases, 417, it is stated that the landlord may, even at law, assert the merely colorable character of the assignment.

- (i) Running of covenant on death. On the death of the landlord or tenant, the benefit or burden of a covenant, if it touches or concerns the land, will ordinarily pass. For instance, the landlord's devisee94 or heir95 is entitled to enforce a covenant as regards breaches occurring after the landlord's death, and he is, as owner of the reversion, liable for breaches of the lessor's covenants occurring after the decedent's death.96 Likewise, the personal representative of a deceased tenant, provided he takes possession of the premises,97 is liable, like any other assignee, for breaches of the lessee's covenants occurring during his time98 and before he assigns over to another.99