entered into, the new leases were deemed invalid, on the ground, that these covenants did in their nature, tend to the preservation, management and improvement of the premises demised, and were for that reason, for the benefit, advantage and security not only of the immediate lessor, but likewise of all persons claiming after him (1). In Jones v. Verney (m), a power to grant building leases required the leases to contain "the usual and reasonable covenants." A lease was made and the lessee covenanted to keep the old messuage, and buildings on the land in repair, and to repair such other messuage or buildings, as should during the term be built on the premises. The court upon the whole, thought that this was not a building lease, under the power, and Lord Chief Justice Willes, said, that " α reasonable covenant in a building lease, must certainly be meant of a covenant to build but there was none such in this lease." In the case of Doe v. Sandham (n), usual and reasonable covenants were also required, and in the lease the lessor covenanted that in case of fire, &c. he or the person for the time being entitled to the freehold, should rebuild, or in default thereof, the tenant might quit the premises and be discharged from payment of the rent. The jury found the covenant to be an unusual and unheard of covenant on the part of the lessor, and the lease was accordingly determined to be void both at law and in equity. (1) Earl of Cardigan v. Montagu, (n) 1 Term Rep. 705, supra p. App. No. 14. (4) (7) (8). (m) Willes 169. 296. The The construction is the same upon any word taniamount to the word "covenants" 66 as boons," or the like. This was decided in the case of the Earl of Cardigan v. Montagu (a). The words in the power were, "reserving ancient, usual and accustomed rents, boons, heriots and services." And it was determined that the covenants formerly entered into were boons, and that therefore leases grauted under the power, in which the usual covenants were omitted, could not be supported. The principle Lord Chancellor Hardwicke rested upon was, that the estate must come to the remainder-man, in as beneficial a manner, as ancient owners held it. The omission of a proper covenant avoids, we have seen, the whole lease. In Doe and Sandham (b), it was argued that the introduction of an improper covenant, although it imported to bind the freehold, was merely void, and ought not to affect the validity of the lease, but Mr. Justice Buller observed, that this argument, if it proved any thing, proved this, that no lease executed under a power, could be bad except from the omission of some covenant required; because each covenant which is contrary to that power, might be rejected, but that would be contrary to all the adjudged cases on the subject. The lease must be taken good or bad on the face of it. Now where the lease on the face of it imports to bind the reversion as well as the tenant for life, inasmuch as the tenant for life has exceeded his power, the lease cannot bind the reversion, and is, therefore void. If a proper covenant be omitted the lease cannot be supported, because the lessee has of his own accord done (a) App. No. 14. (1) Vide Supra. that that which he ought to have covenanted to do: quod initio non valet, tractu temporis non convalescet, therefore, if a covenant to build, be wrongfully omitted, it is no argument in favour of the lease, that the lessee has actually covered the estate with buildings (c). It remains only to observe, that where usual covenants are required, they must be expressly inserted: a lease with a clause in the very words of the deed would not be good, nor could it be aided by any special verdict, finding what the usual covenants are (d). (c) Jones v. Verney, Willes 169; and see Cooper v. Denne, 4 Bro. C. C. 80. (d) See 3 Cha. Rep. 76. 2M3 APPENDIX. APPENDIX. No. I. Case in the reign of HENRY VIIth (a). THIS case first came on in the 14th Henry VII. and is the last case reported in that year. In the King's-bench the case was such: A man had certain feoffees in his land to his use, and made his will, and wills that his lands shall be sold after the death of one A, whom he willed to have the profit during his life; which feoffees have enfeoffed others to the use to perform the will of the testator; and if the second feoffees shall sell the land or not, that was the matter, Kings. semble, that the second feoffees may well sell the land. This case came on again in Trinity term, in the 15th of Henry VII. and is in the year-book, fo. 11 b. A man enfeoffs A and B upon trust, and afterwards he makes his will, and recites that A and B were seised to his use, and that his will is, that the said A and B should make an estate to his wife for the term of her life, and the remainder to his son and heir, and to the heirs of his body begotten. And if the son should die without heirs of his body, then his will was, that the aforesaid fcoffees should alien the said land; and that the money arising thereby should be distributed for his soul. Then the feoffor died, and the feoffees make a feoffment over to the same use, and declare their will (a) Vide supra, p. 53. that |