The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-12-10

that ke sAsn secege The rceeirt q ne
entire CcearaisSscn
ne nakea qaestiea ctlsw reraslnS - y
he efect e lbs aeceptsnee g reae IL
wecss l. 4 7. SectSca SIS i i lesa DIVA
that An SsSigemeet, even When expressly
fsreS6isa ey the lease, and When. ~ tke
tegras q The lessee fcrteltase : provided
scE is hreseA Is nevertheless valid, and
paSSes TIE estate 10 The aSSsseee subject
u the ecaseqeecces q the h<esch, ard tie
landlord may wave the fcrfestare either
expressly OF inrheJly. by peescnslty ae
ceptSnS rent that scerySs sssAseQseet to
he sSssgnnsnt knowing the fact thst such
assignment has been naae.r The case IN
srppcxs Is GootfriSht ". pevSsss, csapgr
SIS Here Lord Mansfield On MS SAID
This case i extremely clear To coz
ssrue this acceptance q rent due Ssoce he
condition broken. waiver q for'eitlye,
i 10 ecnstrue Il according 10 the intectioa
q the parties, Upcn the bxcacA - the
condition the landlord has q right 10 eater,
be had fell notice % she breach. and doeS
not take a1vantaSs ofAs but seeeptS rent
s1bseqreatly accrued That SaoNS he
meant the lease should ecntinNs> Cases
Of forfeiture are not fsyoSe1 In Law; aud
where the forfeiture i once weiyei the
Court VIII not ASST IT, In case II the
same Volume CAeaeg g. Ba,,sa Ashton J.
sad. when an eieetnent hiss been bTcaghs
on the StatUte q George fcS the twfei-
ture Of lease, there being hall = ,tears
rent in arrears, and no sufficient distress
In the premises thsre, acceptance u rcnt
afterwards BY the landlord has l believe,
been held 4 waiver q the forfeiture q the
lease which nay well De, for Il : q
penalty, and by accepting the rent the
party valves the penalty,
In Shattuek ". I0yeloy VII .'nsg ~ the
Court say The breach Of covenant by the
lessees, by assigning the lease and per
uaitting other persons 70 occupy the pre-
misses, without the Appreciation u the les
scr, or those having his estate IL the pre-
misses, did not terminate the lease and n
vest the estate IN the lessor or his assigns
In Rogers rs. Snow us NGss. lis the
Court held that breach OF condition IN =
lease which provides that. III case the leS-
see Hegleets to perform his covenants, the
lesser may, while such neglect continues.
enter upon the premises and sxpel the
lessee, and thSt upon such entry the term
shall cease, does not work 4 forfeiture q
the lease, without entry. The Court per
Morton ] say Under this the lease may
be terminSted upon the refusal to pay rent,
al the election Of the lessor, but it's elcaI
that unless he enters while the default
continues, the lease remains IN force
But to give acceptance Of rent IN such
cases the effect OF waiver, the lessor must
be aware Of the assignment.
In GreSSon vs.. Harrison Usarsf3ri 4
East 40. AShhurst, j. said that il did no,
appear that the landlord WIS eognizant q
the forfeiture The giving Of the receipt
By the landlord for rent subsequent to tbs
time Of the forfeiture. Is indeed an dc
acknowledgement Of the tenancy, but that
Is only where he knows the act OF forfei
ture at the time
In the case at bar tie Commissioner and
Land Agent consented IN writing To the
assignment to the plaintiffs Tins mus
be held TO be knowledge Of the assignment
and was notice to the whole Board
But 1t Is urged upon Us that the plain
tiffs have no privIty Of contract with De
| PENDANTS and Consequently have no right
10 bring this action BIZ all the 1uthori
ties 4 covenant for quiet enjoyment run:
with the land and Is therefore binding OF
| the assignses Of the reversiOn- Ii may
also be rendered available by the assig
nees Of the term. Wood. l. Il T. Section
$50
Campbell vs.. Lewis Sara. & IL 500 Is
! q case quite similar 10 the one at bar III
action for damages for breach Of covenant
| for quiet enjoyment by an assignee Of ,
lease was sustained on the ground that
thara was a y7-irfs,r sf gSfrts hatyva.ar,- hfu
and the lessor. HOlruyd ). says 1 am o.
opinion that this action Is maintainabls
upon the covenant whether any estate re
main IN the eovenantor or not for 1t Is q
covenant running with the land" In TIN.
case It was conceded that there Was Nc
privity Of contract
The earlier case Of MlddlemOre V. Goo
dale Cro. Car. 5O3 had decided. where
party grants an estate IN fee, with cove
nznt for further assurance and his gran
tee grants it over 10 A that 4 may main
tam covenant against the original grzntor
on the ground that 4 privity Of estate ex
lists between them The same question
aruse upon a chattel real and was deeideC
the same way IN Noke vs. Avder Cr9 EIig
573. 1876
There Is privity Of estate between III,
defendants tlsssors) and plaintiffs who AZ,
been no reeutry fOl. breach Of condition
The exceptions are oTerruled-
A. S Hartwell, for Plaintiffs; Attorney
General Neumann. for defendants
Honolulu. December lst. 1881
goGlrruI advertisements.