the common law-第68节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


bly　from　there　having　been　originally　no　remedy　to　compel　performance　of　such　services；　except　a　distress　executed　on　the　servient　land。　/1/　But　any　conjectured　distinction　between　obligations　for　which　the　primitive　remedy　was　distress　alone；　and　others；　if　it　ever　existed；　must　soon　have　faded　from　view；　and　the　line　between　those　rights　which　can　be　deemed　rights　of　property；　and　those　which　are　mere　contracts；　is　hard　to　see；　after　the　last　examples。　A　covenant　to　repair　is　commonly　supposed　to　be　a　pure　matter　of　contract。　What　is　the　difference　between　a　duty　to　repair；　and　a　duty　to　fence？　The　difficulty　remains　almost　as　great　as　ever　of　finding　the　dividing　line　between　the　competing　principles　of　transfer；　succession　on　the　one　side；　and　possession　of　dominant　land　on　the　other。　If　a　right　in　the　nature　of　an　easement　could　be　attached　to　land　by　prescription；　it　could　equally　be　attached　by　grant。　If　it　went　with　the　land　in　one　case；　even　into　the　hands　of　a　disseisor；　it　must　have　gone　with　it　in　the　other。　No　satisfactory　distinction　could　be　based　on　the　mode　of　acquisition；　/2/　nor　was　any　attempted。　As　the　right　was　not　confined　to　assigns；　there　was　no　need　of　mentioning　assigns。　/3/　In　modern　times；　at　least；　if　not　in　early　law；　such　rights　can　be　created　by　covenant　as　well　＇394＇　as　by　grant。　/1/　And；　on　the　other　hand；　it　is　ancient　law　that　an　action　of　covenant　may　be　maintained　upon　an　instrument　of　grant。　/2/　The　result　of　all　this　was　that　not　only　a　right　created　by　covenant；　but　the　action　of　covenant　itself；　might　in　such　cases　go　to　assigns；　although　not　mentioned；　at　a　time　when　such　mention　was　essential　to　give　them　the　benefit　of　a　warranty。　Logically；　these　premises　led　one　step　farther；　and　not　only　assigns　not　named；　but　disseisors；　should　have　been　allowed　to　maintain　their　action　on　the　contract；　as　they　had　the　right　arising　out　of　it。　Indeed；　if　the　plaintiff　had　a　right　which　when　obtained　by　grant　would　have　entitled　him　to　covenant；　it　was　open　to　argument　that　he　should　be　allowed　the　same　action　when　he　had　the　right　by　prescription；　although；　as　has　been　seen　in　the　case　of　rent；　it　did　not　follow　in　practice　from　a　man's　having　a　right　that　he　had　the　contractual　remedies　for　it。　/3/　Covenant　required　a　specialty；　but　prescription　was　said　to　be　a　sufficiently　good　specialty。　/4/　Where；　then；　was　the　line　to　be　drawn　between　covenants　that　devolved　only　to　successors；　and　those　that　went　with　the　land？

The　difficulty　becomes　more　striking　upon　further　examination　of　the　early　law。　For　side　by　side　with　the　personal　warranty　which　has　been　discussed　hitherto；　there　was　another　warranty　which　has　not　yet　been　mentioned　＇395＇　by　which　particular　land　alone　was　bound。　/1/　The　personal　warranty　bound　only　the　warrantor　and　his　heirs。　As　was　said　in　a　case　of　the　time　of　Edward　I。；　〃no　one　can　bind　assigns　to　warranty；　since　warranty　always　extends　to　heirs　who　claim　by　succession　and　not　by　assignment。〃　/2/　But　when　particular　land　was　bound；　the　warranty　went　with　it；　even　into　the　hands　of　the　King；　because；　as　Bracton　says；　the　thing　goes　with　its　burden　to　every　one。　/3/　Fleta　writes　that　every　possessor　will　be　held。　/4/　There　cannot　be　a　doubt　that　a　disseisor　would　have　been　bound　equally　with　one　whose　possession　was　lawful。

We　are　now　ready　for　a　case　/5/　decided　under　Edward　III。；　which　has　been　discussed　from　the　time　of　Fitzherbert　and　Coke　down　to　Lord　St。　Leonards　and　Mr。　Rawle；　which　is　still　law；　and　is　said　to　remain　still　unexplained。　/6/　It　shows　the　judges　hesitating　between　the　two　conceptions　to　which　this　Lecture　has　been　devoted。　If　they　are　understood；　I　think　the　explanation　will　be　clear。

Pakenham　brought　covenant　as　heir　of　the　covenantee　against　a　prior；　for　breach　of　a　covenant　made　by　the　defendant's　predecessor　with　the　plaintiff's　great…　grandfather；　that　the　prior　and　convent　should　sing　every　week　in　a　chapel　in　his　manor；　for　him　and　his　servants。　The　defendant　first　pleaded　that　the　plaintiff　and　his　servants　were　not　dwelling　within　the　manor；　but；　not　daring　to　＇396＇　rest　his　case　on　that；　he　pleaded　that　the　plaintiff　was　not　heir；　but　that　his　elder　brother　was。　The　plaintiff　replied　that　he　was　tenant　of　the　manor；　and　that　his　great…grandfather　enfeoffed　a　stranger；　who　enfeoffed　the　plaintiff　and　his　wife；　and　that　thus　the　plaintiff　was　tenant　of　the　manor　by　purchase；　and　privy　to　the　ancestor；　and　also　that　the　services　had　been　rendered　for　a　time　whereof　the　memory　was　not。

It　is　evident　from　these　pleadings　that　assigns　were　not　mentioned　in　the　covenant；　and　so　it　has　always　been　taken。　/1/　It　also　appears　that　the　plaintiff　was　trying　to　stand　on　two　grounds；　first；　privity；　as　descendant　and　assign　of　the　covenantee；　second；　that　the　service　was　attached　to　the　manor　by　covenant　or　by　prescription；　and　that　he　could　maintain　covenant　as　tenant　of　the　manor；　from　whichever　source　the　duty　arose。

Finchden；　J。　puts　the　case　of　parceners　making　partition；　and　one　covenanting　with　the　other　to　acquit　of　suit。　A　purchaser　has　the　advantage　of　the　covenant。　Belknap；　for　the　defendants；　agrees；　but　distinguishes。　In　that　case　the　acquittance　falls　on　the　land；　and　not　on　the　person。　/2/　（That　is　to　say；　such　obligations　follow　the　analogy　of　easements；　and；　as　the　burden　falls　on　the　quasi　servient　estate；　the　benefit　goes　with　the　dominant　land　to　assigns；　whether　mentioned　or　not；　and　they　are　not　considered　from　the　point　of　view　of　contract　at　all。　Warranty；　on　the　other　hand；　is　a　contract　pure　and　simple；　and　lies　in　the　blood；falls　on　the　person；　not　on　the　land。　/3/）

Finchden：　a　fortiori　in　this　case；　for　there　the　action　＇397＇　was　maintained　because　the　plaintiff　was　tenant　of　the　land　from　which　the　suit　was　due；　and　here　he　is　tenant　of　the　manor　where　the　chapel　is。

Wichingham；　J。：　If　the　king　grants　warren　to　another　who　is　tenant　of　the　manor；　he　shall　have　warren；　&c。；　but　the　warren　will　not　pass　by　the　grant　＇of　the　manor＇；　because　the　warren　is　not　appendant　to　the　manor。　No　more　does　it　seem　the　services　are　here　appendant　to　the　manor。

Thorpe；　C。　J。；　to　Belknap：　〃There　are　some　covenants　on　which　no　one　shall　have　an　action；　but　the　party　to　the　covenant；　or　his　heir；　and　some　covenants　have　inheritance　in　the　land；　so　that　whoever　has　the　land　by　alienation；　or　in　other　manner；　shall　have　action　of　covenant；　＇or；　as　it　is　stated　in　Fitzherbert's　Abridgment；　/1/　the　inhabitants　of　the　land　as　well　as　every　one　who　has　the　land；　shall　have　the　covenant；＇　and　when　you　say　he　is　not　heir；　he　is　privy　of　blood；　and　may　be　heir：　/2/　and　also　he　is　tenant　of　the　land；　and　it　is　a　thing　which　is　annexed　to　the　chapel；　which　is　in　the　manor；　and　so　annexed　to　the　manor；　and　so　he　has　said　that　the　services　have　been　rendered　for　all　time　whereof　there　is　memory；　whence　it　is　right　this　action　should　be　maintained。〃　Belknap　denied　that　the　plaintiff　counted　on　such　a　prescription；　but　Thorpe　said　he　did；　and　we　bear　record　of　it；　and　the　case　was　adjourned。　/3/

It　will　be　seen　that　the　discussion　followed　the　lines　marked　out　by　the　pleading。　One　judge　thought　that　＇398＇　the　plaintiff　was　entitled　to　recover　as　tenant　of　the　manor。　The　other　puisne　doubted；　but　agreed　that　the　case　must　be　discussed　on　the　analogy　of　easements。　The　Chief　Justice；　after　suggesting　the　possibility　of　sufficient　privity　on　the　ground　that　the　plaintiff　was　privy　in　blood　and　might　be　heir；　turns　to　the　other　argument　as　more　promising；　and　evidently　founds　his　opinion　upon　it。　/1/　It　would　almost　seem　that　he　considered　a　prescriptive　right　enough　to　support　the　action；　and　it　is　pretty　clear　that　he　thought　that　a　disseisor　would　have　had　the　same　rights　as　the　plaintiff。

In　the　reign　of　Henry　IV。；　another　case　/2/　arose　upon　a　covenant　very　like　the　last。　But　this　time　the　facts　were　reversed。　The　plaintiff　counted　as　heir；　but　did　not　allege　that　he　was　tenant　of　the　manor。　The　defendant；　not　denying　the　plaintiff's　descent；　pleaded　in　substance　that　he　was　not　tenant　of　the　manor　in　his　own　right。　The　question　raised　by　the　pleadings；　therefore；　was　whether　the　heir　of　the　covenantee　could　sue　without　being　tenant　of　the　manor。　If　the　covenant　was　to　be　approached　from　the　side　of　contract；　the　heir　was　party　to　it　as　representing　the　covenantee。　If；　on　the　other　hand；　it　was　treated　as　amounting　to　the　grant　of　a　service　like　an　easement；　it　would　naturally　go　with　the　manor　if　made　to　the　lord　of　the　manor。　It　seems　to　have　been　thought　that　such　a　covenant　might　go　either　way；　according　as　it　was　made　to　the　tenant　of　the　manor　or　to　a　stranger。　Markham；　one　of　the　judges；　says：　〃In　a　writ　of　covenant　one　must　be　privy　to　the　covenant　if　he　would　have　a　writ　of　covenant　or　aid　by　the　covenant。　But；　peradventure；　if　the　covenant　＇399＇　had　been　made　with　the　lord　of　the　manor；　who　had　inheritance　in　the　manor；　ou　issint　come　determination　poit　estre　fait；　it　would　be　otherwise；〃　which　was　admitted。　/1/　It　was　assumed　that　the　covenant　was　not　so　made　as　to　attach　to　the　manor；　and　the　court；　observing　that　the　service　was　rather　spiritual　than　temporal；　were　inclined　to　think　that　the　heir　could　sue。　/2/　The　defendant　accordi