Case Name: CHARLES W. MIXON vs. JAMES COFFIELD
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1842-06
Citations: 2 Ired. 301
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES W. MIXON vs. JAMES COFFIELD.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
CHARLES W. MIXON vs. JAMES COFFIELD.
Where a guardian rented land and took no bond or other security to l himself for the rent, and before the rent became due, the ward came of — ,- age and conveyed the land in fee to the lessee, held that the rent, being incidental to the reversion, was extinguished by this conveyance of the reversion to the lessee.
Appeal from Chowan Superior Court of Law, at Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Manly presiding.
This was an action of debt, originally commenced before a magistrate, brought to recover the rent of a tract of land.
.The plaintiff proved that, on the 1st of January, 1841, he, as the guardian of Edward and Margaret Jones, rented by parol to the defendant a tract of land for that year for the sum of sixty dollars, taking no note, bond or covenant, for the payment thereof; and that the defendant entered and took the possession thereof, and occupied the premises for that year. The defendant .then proved, that, on the 19th day of July, 1841, and before the rent or any part thereof fell due, the said Edward and Margaret Jones, having arrived at the age of twenty-one years, by deed conveyed the land, so rented, to the defendant in fee simple. The plaintiff then offered to shew that he had accounted with, and paid to, the said Edward and Margaret Jones, the rent of the said land for the year 1841, before the commencement of this suit. His Honor refused to receive the testimony, as to the accounting for and paying the rent aforesaid to the said Edward and Margaret Jones, but held, and so charged the jury, that the facts proved by the defendant, constituted no defence to the action for rent. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for sixty dollars, the entire rent for the year 1841. A new trial having been moved for and refused, and judgment rendered
pursuant to the verdict, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
A. Moore and Iredell for the plaintiff.
No counsel for the defendant.

Opinion:
Daniel, J.
The judge was of opinion that the facts shewn by the defendant constituted no defence to this action. We are of a different opinion. There is no covenant under seal, that the defendant will pay the rent to the plaintiff, so as to make the contract entirely personal. The guardian had power to rent the land of his wards. Provided always, that he shall not let out any such land of his wards, for a longer term than the orphans be of age, or in any other manner, than by lease in writing, with proper covenants; (Rev. Stat. c. 54, s. 15.) Without stopping to inquire whether the act is only directory to the guardian, we are of opinion that, if in this case the parol lease was good, the reversion in the land was in the wards, and the accruing rent was incidental to the reversion. Co. Lit. 143, b. When, therefore, the wards came of age, and conveyed the land to the lessee, this conveyance united, in the same person and in the same right, the greater with the less estate, when the estate for years was drowned in the inheritance, and thereby perpetually extinguished. The action of debt for rent is founded on privity of contract, which is said to be annexed to the person in respect of the estate, and so follow the estate. As soon, therefore, as the privity of estate is transferred, the remedy by debt is tranferred also, and passes to the grantee of the reversion. Comyn on L. & T. 422, and the authorities there cited. The reversion, the rent, and the remedy for the rent were, by the said conveyance, all transferred to the defendant; and, therefore, necessarily the rent was extinguished. There must be a new trial.
Per Curiam, New trial awarded,