case hide versus skinner Lord Macclesfield lessor covenant to renew the Iease  at the request of the lessee within the term lessee do not request but  executor do within the term lessor be compellable to renew Skinner possess of  a long term for year of a house in Enfield with the appurtenance lease the  same to the plaintiff testator hide for five year and covenant for himself and  his executor to renew the lease at the same rend and on the same covenant upon  the request of hide within the land hide the lessee die within the term have  lie out a considerable sum of money in improve the premise and the executor  within the term request the defendant the lessor to make a new lease to they  for fifty year at the old rend peer William Obj this request ought to have be  make b the lessee hide and not by his executor who may be insolvent person and  consequent the lessor in danger of lose his rend Lord chancellor the executor  of every person be imply in himself and bind peer William er p without name  and the meaning of this covenant be to the end the lessee may be reimburse the  money which he have lie out in the improvement of the premise for which reason  it be immaterial whether the testator or the executor require the renewal of  the lease it need not be personal but then the request for the make of a new  lease for fifty year be too much for it may have be as well for or year but  the usual term for lease be for twentyone year let the defendant demise the  premise to the plaintiff for twentyone year or for any lesser term as the  plaintiff shall elect and though the lease be to be make on the same covenant  yet that shall not take in a covenant for the renew this new lease forasmuch  as then the lease will never be at a end as to the objection that the executor  may be insolvent tenant and such as the defendant will not care to trust to  this it may be answer that there be to be a clause of reentry in the lease and  the value of the premise be double by the improvement of the original lessee  such clause of reentry will secure the landlord against any insolvency of the  tenant peer William therefore let the defendant pay cost in this court and  also at law for the ejectment which he bring against the plaintiff and in  which he have recover judgement Reg lib a fol vide bridge v Hitchcock bro p c  and Edward bro p c Furnival v crew atk Russel v Darwin bro c c note cook v  booth Cowp Tritton v foot bro c c S c Cox Redshaw v governor c of Bedford  level Eden Baynham v guy hospital Ves more v Foley Ves Iggulden v may Ves east  n r harnett v yield Sch l city of London v Mitford Ves Watson v Hemsworth  hospital ib Willan v Willan Ves Dowling v mill mad