The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-05-07
In the Supreme Court of the Ha.
Waiian Islands.


from, Campbell 70. Lewis, B. IL A.,
392. But IN this case there WEE an
express covenant by 4. and the
Court held l. (who had possession
or the premises for a period OF
years. liable on MS covenant TO 3.
at the suit OF G, to whom 3 mad
assigned the lease, C was eyleted
by j. y, the lessor, for a breach
committed by a previous TO the
assignment TO B. The Court sus-
Gained the action against A
upon the covenant for quiet enjoy
ment on the ground Of prIyity OF
estate between A and c. The policy
OF the law is not to extend implied
covenants.
In Rawie on Covenants for Title,
Sec 275, the author says, Nor, ii
/ would seem. will the covenant I'M
| piled IN the creation of leasshold
endure longer than during the con-
tinuance Of the estate out OF which
it ID granted"
Thus in an old case (ISDan vs.
Sear5es Dyer, 257al a tenant for life
having made lease by the word
demise, the lessee was after the death
of the tenant for life and before the
effiuyion of the term, evicted by the
remainderman and brought cove
nant against the executors OF
the lessor, but it was held that
the covenant in law ends and de-
termines with the estate and interest
of the lessor"
In Adams Vs. Gibney, 6 Bing.,
656, Tindall, G. j., referring to Swan
vs. s3earies approvingiy and also to
Bragg vs. Wiseman ian old case and
not accessible to us) where covenant
is brought against the executor OF
the husband upon a lease by hus
band and wife, it was laid down
''That covenant IN law shall not be
extended to make one do more thar
he can. which was to warrant it as
long as he lived and no longer" Il
adams vs. Gtbney, the question YVES
tenant Tor life, remainder over, Gle
misses TO the lease, his executors, etc.
for the term of fifteen years, withou
any express covenant for quiet Ell
joyment; the lessee is evicted by th'
remainderman, after the death @
: the tenant for life. but before th,
expiration of the fifteen years: whe
Their the lessee can maintain Ell
action of covenant against the exc
cutor Of tenant for life IN respect o
such eviction" The learned Chic
Justice held that he could not an.
adds, mo injustice can be occasion
ed to the lessee by this decision
who must have learned from th
form Of the reservation IN the leas
that his lessor was no more than
tenant for life, but was contented t
accept Lease without an expires
:. covenant for quiet enjoyment"
In the case before rs the Lay
gave the right to Bolster to leas
his wife's land for the term of hi
own life. Why was he not so ia
as the lessee was concerned a ter
ant for life? That was certainl
the quality and duration of his q:
). tate, of which the lessee had motto
by the indenture itself. The la
implied covenant by the use {
3 words of demise on the part {
Bolster that the lessee should hay
quiet enjoyment of the premises g
long as he (Bolster) lived and q
longer Such is our opinion of til.
case, upon reason and authority.
Tt does not become necessary
pass upon the other points in til
case, except to say that they wei
properly overruled below. The q
tate Of Bolster not being bound
law on the implied covenant, the al
81 illustrators promise does NJ
bind it.
The Judgment below is reverses
" and Judgment may be had for I'll
defendant.
: W. r. Castle for plaintiff; {
Creighton for defendant.
Honolulu, April 14th, 1891.