Trenchard v. Hoskins, Winch. 91. Lit. Rep. 203. Sid. Rep.. 328. Grey v. Briscoe, Noy, 142 Nash v. T. Jones, For quiet And by the second, that he has good right and full power to convey the same. 48. It appears to have been formerly doubted whether these clauses constituted two several cove nants, or only one. But the better opinion appears to be, that they constitute two several and independent covenants; for although if the vendor be seised in fee he has power to convey; yet the converse of this proposition does not hold, for a person may have power to convey, though not seised in fee. Thus where a tenant in tail conveys to a person to make him tenant to the præcipe, in order that a common recovery may be suffered to the use of a purchaser in fee; or where a person conveys under a power, the covenant is, that the grantor has good right to convey, and the first covenant is omitted. 49. A person covenanted that he was seised of Black Acre in fee simple, whereas, in truth, it was copyhold in fee. The Court held it was a breach of covenant, and the jury should give damages, in their consciences, according to the rate at which the country valued fee simple land more than copyhold, 50. Two men and their wives joined in a grant of their wives lands, being parceners; and covenanted that they and their wives had good right to convey the lands. It was affirmed for breach, that one of the women was under age, and died; and that the right of the lands descended to her son, an infant; and so the estate of a moiety was divested out of the plaintiff. This was held to be a breach of the cove nant. 51. By the third of these covenants, the grantor Enjoyment. formerly covenanted that the grantee, his heirs and assigns, should enjoy the premises granted, without the eviction or disturbance of the grantor or his heirs, or any other person whatsoever. But this covenant is now much restrained, as will be shewn hereafter. 52. It was formerly held that a covenant of this kind extended to all evictions whatever. Thus, it was resolved in 15 & 16 Eliz. that where a person Mountford made a lease for a term of years, and covenanted V. Catesby, Dyer, 328 a. that the lessee should enjoy the premises during the term, without the eviction or interruption of any person; this extended to a tortious eviction. 2 Saund. R. 178 a. n. 8. 53. This doctrine has however been long since ex- Vaugh, 122. ploded; and it has been settled that the law will never adjudge a person to covenant against the wrongful acts. 181 a. n. 10. of strangers, unless his covenant is express to that purpose; for the law itself defends every one against wrong. And therefore, though a person should covenant in the most general terms, for the title to lands, yet such covenant will not be held to extend to tortious entries; for if a purchaser is tortiously evicted. or disturbed, he has his remedy at law; and if he is legally evicted, he has his action on the covenant. Whereas if general covenants for a title should be construed to extend to tortious evictions, a way might be opened for secret practices, and combinations, between a purchaser and strangers; that the purchasers might recover damages from the covenantors. this construction has been confirmed in the following modern case. And Folliot, 3 Term R. 54. A person conveyed certain lands in the pro- Dudley v. vince of New York in America, to a purchaser, in consideration of 1,2007.; and covenanted that the pur- 584. chaser should enjoy the lands without the let, trouble, hinderance, &c. of the vendor or his heirs, and of every other person or persons whomsoever. The States of America seised the lands, for an act done previous to the conveyance. An action was brought in the Court Noble v. Smith, 1 H Black. 34. Foster Chaplain v. of King's Bench at Westminster, on this covenant; and upon a demurrer, the Court was of opinion that the action did not lie; for even a warranty, which was conceived in terms more general than this covenant, had been restrained to lawful interruptions. 55. But where a person covenants to save the purchaser harmless from all acts of a particular person, there the vendor is bound to defend the purchaser against the entry of that person, whether by title or not. 56. Thus, where a lessor covenanted to save harmless the lessee concerning the premises, and the profits thereof to be received, against J. D. parson of S.; afterwards the lessee was ejected by J. D. without title; the covenant was held to be broken. 57. So where the covenant is against all claims to a particular right, it will extend to tortious, as well as to legal claims. 58. The defendant leased to the plaintiff a farm called Dale, and there being a pretence of a right of common set up to two closes, comprehended in the lease, the lessor covenanted with the lessee, that he should quietly enjoy the said two closes, against all claiming or pretending to claim any right in them. Upon this covenant the lessee brought his action, and assigned his breach, that such a one having or pretending to have a claim, time out of mind, did enter upon the said closes. To this the defendant demurred; and it was insisted by his counsel, that the covenant only extended to legal, not tortious claims; and therefore that the plaintiff should have set forth, that the claim of him who disturbed him was a legal one. But the Court was of opinion that the words of the covenant did extend to all interruptions whatsoever, and so was the plain intent and meaning of the parties; for if it was to extend to legal claims only, then would the tenant be put under the hardship of trying the right for the landlord; which was the very thing the tenant plainly designed to prevent by the covenant. Judgment for the plaintiff. 59. Where lands are conveyed to particular uses, instead of a covenant for quiet enjoyment, the words usually inserted are, that the estates conveyed shall be and remain to the uses thereby declared without any eviction, &c. Incum Grant, 164. 60. By the fourth of these covenants the lands are Free from declared to be free from all incumbrances. And in brances. 17 Edw IV. it was held, that if a person covenanted Bro. Ab. with another, to acquit him of all charges issuing Touch. 167. out of the land, and after by parliament the tenth part of the value, out of the issues of all lands, were given to the King, the covenant should not extend to this. But if parliament had given the tenth part exituum terræ, the covenant would have extended to this, as well as to rents, commons, and such like things, wherewith the land is charged. 180. 61. In an action of debt upon a bond, where the Hammond v. Hill, condition was, that the defendant should keep harm- Com. Rep. less the plaintiff from all jointures, dowers, annuities, damages, claims, and all other incumbrances; and should perform a covenant contained in a certain indenture, whereby the defendant conveyed to the plaintiff and his heirs a messuage and lands, &c. and by the same deed covenanted, that the plaintiff should have, use, possess, and enjoy the premises aforesaid, quietly and peaceably, without any impediment from the defendant, his heirs or assigns, or any other person; and that clearly acquitted and exonerated of and from all former and other grants, &c. rents, rentcharges, arrears of rent, statutes, charges, and incum For further Rosewell's Case, brances whatsoever. The plaintiff assigned for breach that the tenements were charged and chargeable with a rent of 11s. 6d. to be paid to the lord of the manor of W. of whom the said tenements were held, under the said rent and other services. The defendant by his rejoinder said that the rent of 11s. 6d. aforesaid was payable to the lord of that manor, as a quit rent, incident to the tenure of those lands; and that the plaintiff was not molested for any arrears of that rent, payable before the making of the indenture aforesaid. The plaintiffmaintained his replication, and the defendant his rejoinder; and upon this there was a demurrer ; and the question was, if this covenant was broken? and it was resolved by the whole Court, without any difficulty, that it was. For the defendant had expressly covenanted with the plaintiff upon his purchase, that he should have the lands discharged of all rents; and therefore they ought to be discharged of this rent, as well as of all others; for a quit rent is a rent; and judgment was given for the plaintiff, 62. By the fifth of these covenants, the grantor binds himself and his heirs to make all such further assurances of the lands as shall be lawfully and rea sonably required by the grantee or his heirs, or their counsel. 63. It was resolved in 35 Eliz., that if a man bar5 Rep. 19 b. gains and sells lands in fee, and covenants to make further assurance, as the counsel of the bargainee shall advise; the bargainee himself, though he be learned in the law, cannot devise the assurance, but some of his counsel must devise it. Higginbottom's Case, 64. It was resolved in 29 & 30 Eliz., that where a person was bound to make such assurance in the law 5 Rep. 18 6. as the counsel of the obligee, upon request made, should advise; and after J. S. was of counsel with |