Upon the conveyance of a reversion to which rent is incident,

46. Garner v. Hannah, 13 N. Y. Super, Ct. (6 Duer) 262, per Slosson, J.

47. Co. Litt. 47a; Doe d. Douglas v. Lock, 2 Ad. & El. 705, 743. See post. Sec. 436.

48. Harrington v. Wise, Cro. Eliz. 486; Attoe v. Hemmings, 2 Bulstr, 281; Doe d. Rains v. Knel-ler, 4 Car. & P. 3.

49. Litt. Sec. 346; Co. Litt. 143b.

Rolle, Abr. 447; Gilbert, Rents. 54; Ryerson v. Quackenbush, 26 X. J. L. 232.

50. Toan v. Pline, 60 .Mich. 385, 27 X. W. 557; Brett v. Sayle, 60 Miss. 192; Schneider v. White, 12 Ore. 503, 8 Pac. 652; Broddie v. Johnson, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 464. And cases cited ante, this section, note 44.

•"J. Newcomb v. Harvey, Carth.

2 R. P. - 18 the rent also passes unless there is a stipulation to the contrary;52 but the reversion may be conveyed without the rent, or the rent may be assigned without the reversion, the rent and the reversion being thereby separated.53

The right to rent which has already become due does not pass upon a transfer of the reversion unless there is an express provision that it shall pass.54 An assignment of rent already due is an assignment of a mere chose in action, while an assignment of the rent, that is, of the right to the instalments as they come due in the future, is properly not an assignment of a chose in action, but is a transfer of an interest in land.54a Were rent a chose in action, and not an interest in land, it would not have been transferable at common law.

The liability for rent reserved on a lease for years passes to an assignee of the leasehold by reason of the "privity of estate" existing between him and the owner of the reversion, and a transferee of the reversion has also, on the same theory, a right to recover the rent. This question of the rights and liabilities of the' trans161; Williams v. Hayward, 1 El. & El. 1040; Mcmurphy v. Minot, 4 N. H. 251.

52. Walker's Case, 3 Coke 22; Butt v. Ellett, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 22 L. Ed. 183; Steed v. Hin-son, 76 Ala. 298; Dixon v. Niccolls, 39 I11. 372, 89 Am. Dec. 312; Out-toun v. Dulin, 72 Md. 536, 20 Atl. 134; Patten v. Deshon, 1 Gray (Mass.) 325.

53. Crosby v. Loop, 13 I11. 625; Watson v. Hunkins, 13 Iowa, 547; Damren v. American Light & Power Co., 91 Me. 334; Beal v. Boston Car Spring Co., 125 Mass. 157, 28 Am. Rep. 216; Brownson v. Roy, 133 Mich. 617, 95 N. W. 710; Moffatt v. Smith, 4 N. Y.

126; Gates v. Max. 125 N. C. 139, 34 S. E. 266; Co. Litt. 143a, 151 b; 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 180c.

54. Flight v. Bentley, 7 Sim. 149; Thornton v. Strauss, 79 Ala. 164; Damren v. American Light & Power Co., 91 Me. 334, 40 Atl. 63; Wise v. Pfaff, 98 Md. 576, 56 Atl. 815; Burden v. Thayer, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 76, 37 Am. Dec. 117; Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Ege, 9 Watts (Pa.) 436, 36 Am. Dec. 130; Dobbs v. Atlas Elevator Co., 25 S. Dak. 177,126 N. W. 250; Kneeland Investment Co. v. Aid-rich, 63 Wash. 609, 116 Pac. 264.

54a. See 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 180c.

Ferees by reason of their privity of estate will be more conveniently considered in connection with the subject of the common- law action of "debt" as a remedy for nonpayment of rent.55

- Covenants to pay rent. An instrument of lease usually contains a covenant on the part of the lessee to pay rent. Both the benefit and the burden of a covenant to pay rent, upon a demise leaving a reversion in the lessor, run with the land,56 and consequently an action thereon may be brought by the transferee of the reversion,57 and against an assignee of the lessee.58

The liability of the original lessee upon his covenant to pay rent, being of a purely contractual nature, is not affected by his assignment of the leasehold, even though the assignment is assented to by the landlord.59

55. Post, Sec. 414, notes 18-29.

56. See ante, Sec. 56.

57. Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 240, 1 Lev. 259; Midgleys v. Lovelace, 12 Mod. 45; Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. 168; Webster v. Nichols, 104 I11. 160; Outtoun v. Dulin, 72 Md. 536; Main v. Feathers, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 646; Maden v. Woodman, 205 Mass. 4, 91 N. E. 206.

58. Palmer v. Edwards, 1 Doug. 187, note; Steward v. Wolveridge, 9 Bing. 60; Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Gal. 225, 5 Pac. 104; Webster v. Nichols, 104 I11. 160; Carley v. Lewis, 24 Ind. 73; Donelson v. Polk, 64 Md. 504, 2 Atl. 824; Lee v. Payne, 4 Mich. 106, 119; Edwards v. Spalding, 20 Mont. 54, 49 Pac. 443; Hogg v. Reynolds, 61 Neb. 758, 87 Am. St. Rep. 522, 86 N. W. 479; Stewart v. Long Island R. Co., 102 N. Y. 601, 8 N. E. 200, 55 Am. Rep. 844; Tyler Commercial College v. Stapleton,

33 Okla. 305, 125 Pac. 443; Moline v. Portland Brewing Co., 73 Ore. 532, 144 Pac. 572; Hannen v. Ewalt. 18 Pa. 9; Bowdre v. Hampton, 6 Rich. Law (S. C.) 208; Pingry v Watkins, 17 Vt. 379.

59. Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 237, 1 Lev. 259; Mills v. Auriol, 1 H. Bl. 433; Randall v. Rigby, 4 Mees. & W. 134; Evans v. Mc-clure. 108 Ark. 531, 158 S. W. 487; Bonetti v. Treat, 91 Cal. 223. 27 Pac. 612, 14 L. R. A. 151; Samuels v. Ottinger, 169 Cal. 209, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 830, 146 Pac. 638; Grommes v. St. Paul Trust Co., 147 I11. 634, 37 Am. St. Rep. 248, 35 N. E. 820; Johnstone v. Stone, 215 Mass. 219, 102 X. E. 366; Latta v. Weiss, 131 Mo. 230, 32 S. W. 1005; Creveling v. De Hart, 54 N. J. Law, 338, 23 Atl. 611; Taylor v. De Bus, 31 Ohio St. 468; Pittsburg Consol. Coal Co. v. Greenlee, 164 Pa. 549, 30 Atl. 589; Almy v. Greene, 13 R.

Occasional statements that, in the particular case, the lessor's acquiescence in the assignment, or failure to assert any claim for rent as against the lessee, had the effect of relieving him from liability,59a can be supported only on the theory that such action on the part of the lessor constituted, under the circumstances of the case, a new lease to the assignee, thus causing a surrender by operation of law.59 b And the same may be said of occasional statements,59c that the acceptance of rent by the landlord from the assignee relieves the lessee from liability 59d Such acceptance of rent can have this effect only if it can be regarded as evidencing a new lease by the landlord to such assignee.

An assignee of the leasehold is in a position different from that of the lessee, in that he can relieve himself from further liability for rent by making an assignment to another.60

I. 350, 43 Am. Rep. 32; Granite Building Corp. v. Rubin, 40 R. I. 208, L. R. A. 1917D, 100 Atl. 310; Kanawha-gauley Coal & Coke Co. v. Sharp, 73 W. Va. 427, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 968, Ann. Cas. 1916E. 786, 80 S. E. 781.

59a. Fry v. Partridge, 73 I11. 51; Colton v. Garham, 72 Iowa, 324, 33 N. W. 76; Brayton v. Boomer, 131 Iowa, 28, 107 N. W. 1099: Kinsey v. Minnick, 43 Md. 112; Patton v. Deshon, 1 Gray (Mass.) 325; Hutcheson v. Jones, 79 Mo. 496; Jamison v. Reilly, 92 Wash. 538, 59 Pac. 699.

59b. Post, Sec. 431, note 89.

59c. Fry v. Partridge, 73 111. 51; Kinsey v. Minnick, 43 Md. 112; Hutcheson v. Jones, 79 Mo. 496. Jamison v. Reilly, 92 Wash. 538, 159 Pac. 699 (semble).

59d. That acceptance of rent from the assignee does not have that effect, see Copeland v. Watts.

1 Starkie 95; Beall v. White, 94 U. S. 382, 24 L. Ed. 173; Schehr v. Berkey, 166 Cal. 157, 135 Pac. 41; Grommes v. St. Paul Trust Co., 147 111. 634, 7 Am. St. Rep. 248, 35 N. E. 820; Powell v. Jones, 50 Ind. App. 493, 98 N. E. 646; Harris v. Heackman, 62 Iowa, 411; Johnson v. Stone, 215 Mass. 219, 102 N. E. 366; Hunt v. Gardner, 39 N. J. Law 530; Decker v Hartshorn, 60 N. J. L. 548, 38 Atl. 678; Mcfarland v. May, - Okla. - , 162 Pac. 753; Hooks v. Bailey, 5 Ga. App. 211, 62 S. E. 1054; Kanawha-gauley Coal & Coke Co. v Sharp, 73 W. Va. 427, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 968, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 786, 80 S. E. 781. And cases cited post, 8 431, note 94. 60. Paul v. Nurse, 8 Barn. & Cres. 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

It has been decided in this country that, even upon the assignment of rent, reserved on a lease for years, apart from the reversion, the benefit of the lessee's covenant runs with the rent, so as to authorize suit by the assignee thereon.61

In case of the transfer of the reversion in a part only of the land by the lessor, he and his transferee are each entitled to recover, on the lessee's covenant to pay rent, a proportional part of the rent.62

The liability on the covenant to pay rent has been regarded as apportionable to such an extent as to render an assignee of the leasehold interest in part of the land subject to a proportional part thereof, and no more.63

- Covenant to pay rent in fee. The benefit of a covenant to pay rent reserved or granted in fee will, according to the English cases, it seems, not run with the rent, so as to be available to subsequent owners thereof, the theory being that a covenant will never

N. E. 1105; Trabue v. Mcadams, 8 Bush. (Ky.) 74; Consumers Ice Co. v. Bixler, 84 Md. 437, 35 Atl. 1086; Bell v. American Protective League, 163 Mass. 558, 28 L. R. A. 452, 47 Am. St. Rep. 481, 40 N. E. 857; Cohen v. Todd, 130 Minn. 227, L. R. A. 1915E, 846, 153 N. W. 531; Meyer v. Alliance Inv. Co., 86 N. J. L. 694, 92 At. 1086, affirming 84 N. J. L. 450, 87 At. 476; Durand v. Curtis, 57 N. Y. 7, 15 Am. Rep. 453; Washington Natural Gas Co. v. Johnson, 123 Pa. 576, 10 Am. St. Rep. 553, 16 At. 799; Harvard Inv. Co. v. Smith, 66 Wash. 429, 119 Pac. 864.

61. Willard v. Tillman, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 274; Demarect v. Willard, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 206; Patten v. Deshon, 1 Gray (Mass.) 325. See

Wineman v. Hughson, 44 111. App. 22. Contra, Allen v. Wooley, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 148.

62. City of Swansea v. Thomas, 10 Q. B. Div. 48. Dreyfus v. Hirt, 82 Cal. 621, 23 Pac. 193; Crosby v. Loop, 13 111. 625; Worthington v Cooke, 56 Md. 51; Linton v. Hart, 25 Pa. St. 193, 64 Am. Dec. 691; Pelton v.. Place, 71 Vt. 430, 76 Am. St. Rep. 782, 46 Atl. 63.

63. Babcock v. Scoville, 56 111. 461; Cox v. Fenwick, 4 Bibb. (Ky.) 538; Daniels v. Richardson, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 565; Harris v. Frank, 52 Miss. 155; St. Louis Public Schools v. Boatmen's Ins. & Trust Co., 5 Mo. App. 91 (sem-ble); Hogg v. Reynolds, 61 Neb. 758, 87 Am. St. Rep. 522, 86 X. W. 479; Van Rensselaer v. Bradley, run with an incorporeal thing.64 In this country, on the other hand, it has been usually held that the benefit of the covenant will run with the rent,65 this being in accord with the view held here that a covenant will run with an incorporeal thing.66

In this country, likewise, the burden of a covenant to pay rent reserved or granted in fee is regarded as passing with the land, so as to render the grantee of the land personally liable thereon.67 In England, it would seem, in view of the expressions adverse to the running of the burden of covenants on conveyances in fee,68 that the grantee of the land would not be liable on the covenant.69