New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-02-04

default III payment. although not constituting a
royersSpn, creates an interest in the land out OF
which the rent issues; whence he considers that,
if The relation Of landlord and tenant between
the parties were necessary to render the cove
nants assignablc, it would not be difficult 70
show that it exists in these cases And he
finally puts aside AN arguments and Objec-
tons on the part Of The defense b. declaring
that, in his opinion, "ths right Of the plain
tiff to recover in this case is entirely clear, upon
the ground that the covenants at common law
run, as was said by Mr.. Sugden, with the rent, in
the hands of to assignec, so as 70 enable him
70 sue upon them; and with the land itself in
the hands of The assignee so as 10 render him
liable to be sued upon them"
The counsel for the delendantsdo not acqui-
escc in the adverse decision of the Court. They
declare that chad the Court taken the trouble
to examine the points and authorities, they
would have given Judgment for the defendants"
They represent the decision, or at least the argu-
mcnts upon which it is based as equally distaste-
ful to the plaintiffs; and assert that, although
the latter accept the benefits Of it in the case
adjudged, they repudiatc the doctrines which
The Court has enunciated az fatal TO their
success in other claims. The covenants, say
the defendants counsel, ere in no sense real,
but are purchasc-money covenants from ven
dee to his vendor, not descendible nor as
signable. Authority for this view is sought
in the decision itself, which is regarded as
saying in effect that tie covenantOrS pur-
chased the land, and that the covenants We're
the consideration price Of such purchase. They
take issue on the statement that the relation Of
landlord and tenant can be shown to exist in
these cases. The Court decided that the con-
tract was an assignment, and not leasei and
our courts in other cases have repeatedly de-
clared that the relation Of landlord and tenant
can be created only by lease. IL is alleged
also that the Court has failed to answer or even
to notice the point which was most pressed upon
their consideration by the defense; and that
was the statute in force when the contracts
were made which provided that every purchaser
of an estate in fee should hold the lands 80 pur-
chased "of the same fee, by the same services
and customs by which the person or persons
making such sale or alienation before held the
same lands or tenemen;s.'
"Ire was on cypress statute providing that no one should
be hold to service by Of becoming purchaser Of lands
in fee. ltwss enacted fr the very purpo'e Of pre-.
venting the imposition Of and services upon e,sie' in Zee
wlor such e.iacs transferred from person 70 -
other That accomplished tia, puposa fully and eec nay
his never been deuied. Thar statute VS., part OF
tLec ard be read ;lt Nchtr Legiila
Courts have the power to change IT, Why, then,
lave ne Court passed that point IN silence"
And finally, the defendants counsel thus sum
up the progress OF the contest:
"Rcnta and services were deu,nIed Of you By the Van
Rensselaer, ground hs tey your landlords and
you their tenants. They assumed 20 base those relations upon
certain con,eysncs in fee which they camed leases in
perpetuy. The wa.eh would have enaued had
hey been leases they claimed to have derived by viii from
he srau.or and that hue they he Of 'the 'o
md your landlords, We ad,ied yoa Tia. he conyeyin'c'
not leases but a.. .umcf. you Iced their demands
that ground alone. II you f.hi in that position
wa. conceded that you were not liable Il you wrong
you did not deny your liability. That substantially the
hole i,sue. a. q subaelto tie Count by tic parties
nd Weir counsel In l9, before shown, the Cosus de
ded against you, solely upon The round that ne statute Of
laos had char ed the decd Of asgmrt deeds o lease
That statute then TeYed and the Court thu. relieved
aaye decided the only question Of Law in dispute between the
parties AID their counsel n your asor, wnhou ano mtg OF
qualification There hescors % ~, md c upoE uoA
% court cor ~ isgaH Q fhs .agvepf u not only
n,.ucd by law, bat conat. viii. tbs eSp'cs provisions
oi tie statute, Of the state
We believe the foregoing presents a fair, |
though necessarily condensed, statement Of the
views entertained by the Court on the one SIDE
and by the defendants counsel on The other.
With that statement, we leave the question to
Inc Legislature, to which, as is intimated in this |
pamphlet the defendants nov propose to carry |
hc whole controversy.
vrs~-Err-lsuss- Tssr-s1s-sE.S
THE TEST OF LOYALTY.