When fix

tures must be removed.

further extended by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875 (). For under that Act (j) the tenant of such a holding may remove any fixtures put up by him after the commencement of the Act (Feb. 14, 1876), for which he is not under that Act, or otherwise, entitled to compensation, excepting steam engines and fixtures put up by him in pursuance of some obligation in that behalf, or instead of some fixtures belonging to the landlord; subject, however, to the following provisions, viz. :-(1) he must pay all rent owing by him, and satisfy all other his obligations to the landlord in respect of the holding; (2) he must not in the removal of any fixture do any unavoidable damage to any part of the holding; (3) he must repair any damage which he may happen to do; (4) he must give the landlord a month's previous notice in writing of his intention to remove the fixtures, and (5) the landlord is to be entitled to buy the fixtures at a valuation. As to steam engines, they are not removable unless the tenant has given a written notice of his intention to erect them, and the landlord has not given any written notice objecting to his so doing.

The tenant's right to remove fixtures should be exercised during his term. For it has been decided that a yearly tenant, who had quitted the premises of which he was tenant, had no right to recover bells and other fixtures which had been subsequently removed by the landlord (k). But it appears to be doubtful whether a tenant may not remove fixtures, notwithstanding that his term has expired, if he remains on the premises as a tenant by sufferance (1).

(i) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 92.

(i) S. 53.

(k) Lyde v. Russell, 1 B. & Ad. 394.

(j) Penton v. Robart, 2 East, 88; Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mee & W. 14; Leader v. Homewood, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 546.

nant as to

The tenant may, of course, deprive himself of the Effect of coveright to remove fixtures by entering into a covenant fixtures. to that effect with his landlord (m). If, however, the articles enumerated in the covenant are all "landlord's fixtures" (that is, fixtures which the tenant would not be entitled to remove even in the absence of such a covenant), any other general words in the covenant which would primâ facie include tenant's fixtures will be held to refer to the landlord's fixtures only (n).

(m) For examples of such covenants see Naylor v. Collinge, 1 Taunt. 19; Burt v. Haslett, 25 L. J. (C. P.) 295; Wilson v. Whately, 1 J. & H. 436; Dumergue v. Rumsey, 33 L. J. (Ex.) 88.

(n) Bishop v. Elliott, 11 Exch. 113.

conditions.

CHAPTER III.

OF AN ESTATE FOR YEARS (continued).

Covenants and WE have already said that the consideration of the form of the covenants which are ordinarily inserted in a lease will be reserved for a future chapter, but it will be more convenient to notice in the present some recent enactments as to covenants and conditions in leases generally, and for this purpose we must refer briefly to the former state of the law on these two points. At one time it was held that no stranger to any covenant or condition could take any advantage or benefit by it. Thus, if A made a lease to B, and there were in the lease covenants by B for payment of rent and other purposes, with a proviso that if B failed to pay the rent, or to observe the covenants, A might re-enter on the demised premises and put an end to the lease; and then A sold his reversion to C: C, being originally a stranger to the covenants and condition, could not take any advantage of them.

32 Hen. VIII. c. 34.

To meet this, an Act was passed in the reign of Henry the Eighth (a), which enacted that the grantees or assignees of any reversion or reversions should have the like advantages against the lessees, by entry for non-payment of rent or for doing waste or other forfeiture, and should also have all and like and the same advantage, benefit, and remedies by action only, for not performing of other conditions, covenants, or agreements contained or expressed in their leases or grants, as the lessors or grantors themselves might have had at any time. Similar provisions were also

(a) 32 Hen. VIII. c. 34.

contained in the Act in favour of lessees, as against the assignees of reversions.

Under this statute C, in the case we supposed above, could now re-enter on the land, or sue B for breach of covenant. If, however, A had granted part only of the reversion to C, or had granted the whole, not to C alone, but in part to C and the rest to D; either of the new lessors could under the statute bring an action against B for any breach of covenant (b), but the statute did not confer on either of them a right of reentry, which was in many cases far more valuable than that of bringing an action. For the Common Law had another doctrine applying to conditions, although not to covenants, namely, that a condition was entire and indivisible, and, consequently, that none but an assignee of the reversion of all the premises could take advantage of it, unless the reversion had been severed by operation of law (c).

The doctrine that conditions were indivisible also gave rise to another difficulty. Leases often contain a covenant by the lessee not to assign or underlet the premises, with a condition that if he does so the lease shall be forfeited. But in Dumpor's Case (d), decided Dumpor's Case. in the year 1603, it was held that a condition in a lease that neither the lessee nor his assigns should alien it without the licence of the lessor was determined by an alienation by licence, and that consequently no subsequent alienation was a breach of the condition.

The application of the general rule to the facts of this case seems to have been erroneous, and the correctness of the particular decision was afterwards questioned by Lord Eldon (e), but it was nevertheless

c. 35.

22 & 23 Vict. law until the passing, in the year 1859, of the 22 & 23 Vict., c. 35, which in effect provides (f) that every licence to do an act which, without such licence, would create a forfeiture, or give a right to re-enter, under a condition in any lease granted before or after the passing of the Act, shall, unless otherwise expressed, extend only to the permission actually given, but not so as to prevent any proceedings for a subsequent breach unless otherwise specified on such licence, and that (g) a licence so given to one of several lessees or co-owners to assign or underlet his share or interest, or to do any other act prohibited to be done without licence, or to any lessee or owner, or to any one of several lessees or owners, to assign or underlet part only of the property, or to do any such acts as aforesaid in respect to part only of such property, shall not operate to destroy or extinguish the right of re-entry in case of any breach of the covenant by the co-lessee or co-lessees or owner or owners of the other shares in the property, or by the lessee of the rest of the property (as the case may be) over or in respect of such shares or interests or remaining property.

At the same time, the Act places the position of assignees of part of a reversion on a more satisfactory footing, by enacting (h) that where the reversion upon a lease is severed, and the rent or other reservation is legally apportioned (i), the assignee of each part of the reversion shall, in respect of the apportioned rent or other reservation allotted or belonging to him, have, and be entitled to, all conditions or powers of re-entry for non-payment of the original rent or other reservation, in like manner as if such conditions or powers had been reserved to him as incident to his part of the

(f) S. 1. (g) S. 2.

(h) S. 3.

(i) Rent is legally apportioned either by a grant of part of the reversion out of which the rent issues, or by granting part of the rent to one person and part to another.