cccxxxix SHEREWOOD and nun case covenant in a action of covenant the plaintiff  declare that Charles grice and Hester hill wife be seize of certain tenement  call Withons with diverse land to the same appertain and of another parcel of  land call dole contain eight acre to they and the heir of the body of the say  Charles on the body of the say Hester his wife lawful beget and so seize  Elizabeth lease the same to the defendant by indenture for year by which  indenture the lessor covenant that the lessee shall have sufficient houseboat  fencingwood and hoopwood upon the land during the term and that further the  lessee covenant for he his executor and assign with the lessor c that it shall  be lawful for they to enter upon the land during the say term and to have  egress and regress there and to cut down and dispose of all the wood and  timber there grow leave sufficient houseboot fencingwood and hoopwood to the  lessee upon the land call the dole for his expense at Withons and further that  he will not take any wood or timber upon the premise without the assent or  assignment of the lessor or his assign otherwise than accord to the indenture  and true meaning thereof and further declare that the say Charles Leonard er p  and his wife so seize levy a fine of part of the land to r S and his heir to  who the defendant attorned and that the say r S afterward devise the same to I  his wife the now plaintiff for year the remainder over to another and die and  that the defendant have fall and carry out of the land call Withons twenty  load of wood without the assent and assignment of the lessor or his assign for  which the plaintiff as assignee bring the action the defendant plead that  after the lease John grice and other by assignment of Hester have cut down and  carry away fifty load of wood in the say land call the dole and so they have  not leave sufficient wood for his expense at Withons accord to the indenture  for which cause he take the say twenty load of wood upon Withons for his  expense upon which the plaintiff do demurrer in law Godfrey the plea be not  good this plea be no more but that sufficient wood be not leave upon the dole  for his expense and although there be not yet the defendant can cut wood  elsewhere for he have restrain himself by the covenant also the covenant of  the lessor be that the lessee shall have sufficient wood upon the dole for his  expense at Wittons but in his satisfaction be do not allege that he have need  of wood for to spend at Withons nor do aver that he have spend it there for  otherwise he have not cause to take c and the meaning be that the lessee shall  have sufficient wood when he have need of it Hobart for the defendant he will  not speak to the plea in Leonard bar but be conceive that the declaration be  not good for here no breach of covenant be assign for the covenant be in the  disjunctive sure that the defendant shall not take wood without the assent or  assignment of the lessor or his assign and the plaintiff charge the defendant  with cut of wood without the assent and assignment of the lessor so he will  compel we to prove more than we ought for if he do it with their assent only  or by their assignment only it be sufficient but if the covenant have be in  the copulative both be necessary and for the nature of copulative he cite the  case where two churchwarden bring a action of trespass the defendant plead  that the plaintiff be not churchwarden upon which they be at issue the jury  find that the one be churchwarden and the other not and for that the plaintiff  can not have judgement for if the one of they be not churchwarden then the  plaintiff be not churchwarden for the copulative ought not to be disjoin and  be cite the case late rule in the common plea betwixt Ognel and Underwood  concern Crucifeild grange a lease unto b certain land for forty year b lease  part of the same to c for ten year a grant a rentcharge out of the land in  tenure occupation b it be resolve that the land lease to c shall not be charge  with that rend for although it be in tenure b yet it be not in his occupation  and both be exquisite because in the copulative so here the lessee may cut  wood with the assent of the lessor without any assignment also here the  substance of the covenant can charge the defendant for although it be in the  negative yet it be not absolute in the negative but do refer unto the covenant  precedent for the word be that the lessee shall not cut wood aliter how accord  to the intent of the indenture where the covenant precedent be not that the  lessee shall not cut wood but in the dole but that the lessor may cut down any  tree in the dole leave sufficient for the lessee which covenant in it self do  not restrain the lessee to cut down any tree in any part of the land demise  nor abridge the power which the law give to he by reason of the demise then  when this last covenant come I e that the lessee will not cut aliter then  accord to the meaning of the indenture without the assent c the same do not  restrain he from the power which the meaning of the indenture give and so no  breach of covenant can be assign in this for by virtue of the lease the lessee  of common right may take necessary fuel upon any part of the land lease also  this first covenant be in the affirmative do not abridge any interest as h the  lessor covenant that the lessee shall have sufficient hedgeboot by assignment  of the baily it be hold by Baldwin and Shelley that the lessee may take it  without assignment because there be no negative word non aliter so e a rend of  To give back be grant to husband and wife and if the husband overlive his wife  that he shall have three pound rend and if the wife do overlive the husband  she shall have forty shilling there it be hold that the rend of To give back  continue not restrain by the severance of any of they and although  peradventure Leonard er p it appear here that the meaning of the party be that  the lessee shall not cut down any wood but in the dole yet forasmuch as such  meaning do not stand with the law it shall be reject as it be hold to be in  the case betwixt tenet and French where a man seize of diverse land devise  parcel of it call gauge to the erect of a school and another parcel unto b in  fee and all his other land unto one French in fee the devise of gauge be hold  void because too general for no person be name and it be further hold that it  pass by the general devise to French and yet that be not the meaning of the  devisor also the plaintiff be not assignee but of parcel of the reversion for  if Leonard the reversion be grant to he for year and such assignee can have a  action of covenant for a covenant be a thing in action and annex to the  reversion so that if the reversion do not continue in its first course as it  be at the time of the creation of the covenant but be alter or divide the  covenant be destroy and therefore it be hold h betwixt wiseman and Warringer  where a lease for year be man e of one hundred acre of land render be pound  rend and afterward the lessor grant fifty acre of it that the grantee shall  not have any part of the rend but all the rend be destroy so in our case here  the grantee have but parcel of the estate a term for year and so be not a  assignee intend as the case betwixt Randal and brown in the court of ware  Randal be seize of certain land covenant with b that if be pay unto he his  heir and assign five hundred pound that then be and his heir will stand seize  to the use of the say b and his heir Randal devise the land to his wife during  the minority of his son the remainder to his son in fee and die have make his  wife his executrix brown at the day and place tenured the moneygenerally the  wife have but a estate for year in the land take the money it be hold that the  same be not a sufficient tender for the wife be not assignee for she have a  interest but for year and here the son be to bear the loss for by a lawful  tender the inheritance shall be divest out of he and therefore the tender  ought to be make to he and not to his wife also as the case be here he be no  assignee for although Charles grice and his wife have the reversion to they  and the heir of the body of Charles and levy a fine without proclamation  nothing passes but his own estate and then the conusee have not any estate but  during the life of Charles and then when a man be seize to he and his heir  during the life of another be have not such a estate as he can devise by the  statute and then when he devise it to his wife for year it be void c it be  adjourn Owen Rep     b a Poph Rep cro trin Elizabeth in the king bench