case Furnivall against crew April see Swinburne v Mlilburn App Cas in what  case covenant in a lease be to be understand as covenant of perpetual renewal  or not S c atk this be a bill bring to enforce the performance of covenant  John crew the defendant grandfather be seize of land in fee in the county of  Chester by lease bear date devise the same to one Thomas more upon three life  reserve a modern report er p rend of fortythree pound eight shilling per annum  subject to heriots c in which lease be these two covenant covenant on the part  of the lessee that he the say Thomas more his executor administrator and  assign shall at the death of any of the life abovementioned which shall first  happen pay unto the say John crew his heir and assign within twelve month next  ensue such death the sum of sixtyeight pound in the name of a fine for to add  one other life to the remain two life abovementioned and so to continue the  renew of this lease or lease pay as aforesaid to the say John crew his heir  and assign the sum of sixtyeight pound for every new life so add and renew as  aforesaid from time to time accord to the true intent and meaning of these  present covenant on the part of the lessor that he the say John crew his heir  executor and assign shall and will for the consideration of the say sum and  sum of modern report sixtyeight pound as aforesaid to be pay to the say crew  his heir executor or assign at crew hall aforesaid or at the place where the  say hall now stand seal and duly execute one or more lease or lease under the  same rend and covenant with these present and therein to add such life or life  of such person or person as shall be then nominate to be add by the say Thomas  more his executor or assign within the space of twelve month next after the  death of any such life as aforesaid accord to the true intent and meaning of  these present there be likewise another lease of land of less value date from  the same John crew to one in which be insert the same covenant different to  move the plaintiff be possess of both these lease and have upon the drop of a  life in each make application to the defendant to renew which be refuse have  now bring his bill in order to have a specific performance of the covenant of  renewal contain in these two lease that which be insist on by the defendant in  his answer be that by the covenant of the ancestor John crew the lessor he be  oblige to renew only upon the death of either of the three life mention in the  original lease and not upon the death of any life that have be since add and  likewise that he be not oblige to insert the covenant for renewal in any  future lease which be deny by the plaintiff the question for the court be  whether these covenant be to be understand as covenant for perpetual renewal  or not that be whether the defendant shall be oblige to renew upon the drop of  every add life as well as the original life or whether it shall be confine to  a covenant for renewal upon the drop of each of the first three life which be  in be at the time of the original lease and it be argue by Mr attorneygeneral  Mr Chute and Mr Wilbraham that the plaintiff be entitle to a renewal and  likewise to perpetuate this covenant through all future lease first from the  construction of the covenant themselves the covenant on the part of the lessee  consist of two branch the first branch extend plain no further than the first  renewal but the additional word in the second branch and will so continue to  renew c mean that the covenant shall be perpetuate the first part of the  covenant only specify the nature of the renewal the latter part be to continue  that renewal through a indefinite time there be no word which limit when it  shall determine either by efflux of time or otherwise the gentleman perhaps  may say that by the word aforesaid in the second branch the intent of the  party be confine and tie down to such renewal as be mention in the first but  if these word be capable of such a sense they will prove that we have no right  to more than one renewal for the first branch be plain descriptive but of one  renewal and if the second give no modern report great latitude we shall not  then be entitle to what they themselves allow we be entitle to videlicet a  renewal upon the death of each of the first three life but these be not the  operate word on which we find our claim the word on which we insist be and so  continue to renew c in the covenant on the part of the lessor the word at crew  hall or at the modern report er p place where the hall now stand show that a  perpetuity be intend by the party and that they calculate for a long duration  than that of three life the word renew under the same rend and covenant must  mean that the same covenant of renewal as well as the other covenant shall be  continue and unless the sense of these word be quite construe away the  plaintiff must have judgement in his favour after the death of any such life  as aforesaid at the latter end of the lessors covenant ought to relate to the  immediate antecedent and not to the first branch of the first covenant and the  immediate antecedent be a add life so that these word amount in fact to the  same as if it have be to renew after the death of any such add life as  aforesaid which be the construction we contend for accord to their  construction a case may happen of absurdity suppose upon the drop of one of  the original life the lessee shall renew and fill it up with another and  afterward the new life drop accord to they we be not entitle to a renewal  suppose then afterward one of the two remain life shall fall then say they  there arise a right of renewal and how shall we renew shall the lessee pay a  double fine for one renewal or shall the lessor grant two additional life upon  receipt of a single fine only either of these will be absurd and contrary to  the express term of the covenant there be a way of construe deed which be very  well know and very frequent make use of in court of justice and that be where  the party themselves by way of their action have show what be their  construction of their own deed the construction which be put by those who make  the deed do very just influence the construction of the court in the present  case there have be two renewal upon one of the lease and three upon the other  and one of they in each lease be find upon the supposition which we contend  for videlicet upon the death of a add life and in every lease which have be  renew the covenant for renewal have be insert in the very same word with that  in the original lease this show clear that it be the opinion of the defendant  ancestor that the covenant in the original lease be a covenant for a perpetual  renewal and on our side likewise the word be understand in the same sense for  we shall show that we have go on in make very great improvement on the premise  in contemplation of the lease be perpetual renewable the case of bridge v  Hitchcock the twentyfourth of June be in point to the present purpose that be  a lease of certain mill S from bridge to Hitchcock for twentyone year with a  covenant that upon request of the lessee six month before the expiration of  the say term the lease shall be renew in what manner soever he modern report  shall desire but upon the same rend and covenant with the present the lessee  apply accord six month before the term expire but the lessor refuse to insert  the same covenant of renewal in the new lease upon a bill bring in the  exchequer the court determine that the lessor shall renew with a new covenant  of renewal and this be afterward affirm in the house of lord in this case  there be no other word to find the determination upon but mere the word upon  the same rend and covenant there be no word to show that the party have more  than one renewal in view beside the covenant there be not mutual there be no  covenant on the part of the lessee to accept so that in that they go further  than a court of equity will sometime do that case be therefore strong in every  respect than the present and be in point to show that where there be a  covenant to renew with the same covenant that extend to a renew or perpetuate  the covenant of renewal though the present case be not word quite so proper as  it may be in order to constitute a perpetual covenant yet it be much more  improper for the construction which they contend for a implicit covenant of  renewal be as good as a explicit one he do not covenant to renew in continuous  but he covenant to renew with the same covenant which be implicit a covenant  to renew perpetual lease of this sort for three life be become a sort of  tenure in the country and it be a discredit to the lord not to accept his  tenant when he come with his money in his hand No argument ought to be draw  from its prove a beneficial bargain to the lessee for if the land have grow  worse if they have be overflow by the sea or the rend have sink by the loss of  trade in a town or by any other accident the lessee have be oblige to pay the  sixtyeight pound and therefore the remedy ought to be modern report er p  mutual at the time the lease be make it may have prove for the benefit of the  one or of the other non constat which and therefore no conclusion shall be  draw from thence Mr solicitorgeneral Mr brown and Mr Fenwick for the defendant  the question for the determination of the court arise upon the construction of  a covenant contain in two lease one date the other in the year subsequent to  the first lease and precedent to the second a settlement be make between crew  the lessor and trustee whereby all his land in Chester among which be the  premise in question be settle to the use of himself for life remainder to his  first c son in tail remainder over to every person who shall claim under that  settlement to make lease for three life such as be allow by the statute of  Henry the seven and no other as this be a voluntary settlement and not in our  power to show any consideration the use we shall make of it will not be to  defeat the lease by set up a prior disposition of the premise by the lessor  but to show that if the covenant in the original lease be not a perpetual  covenant we be not bind by any covenant contain in subsequent renewal they be  all make by person modern report who by this settlement be restrain from grant  any other lease than such as be allow by the statute of Henry the seven the  general question be whether these covenant be to be understand as covenant for  perpetual renewal before we enter into the merit we shall make one or two  introductory observation the perpetual covenant be not contrary to the law of  England yet they be so very rare make use of that no argument can be draw from  or reverence have to the custom of the country in order to explain the word of  the covenant in Ireland covenant of this nature be extreme frequent and there  reference be have to the custom of the country which general great influence  the judgement of the court Lord saley v Wheeler the considerationmoney will  deserve the notice of the court for if the construction of the covenant shall  be doubtful in other respect the court will judge by the considerationmoney  what be intend to be purchase and if the consideration be adequate to a  perpetual renewal that will turn the construction one way if it be hardly  equal to what one will give for that limit renewal which we contend for that  will turn the question the other way in the present case the consideration be  by no mean adequate the annual value of the estate be seventy pound per annum  it never be less than fiftyfive pound and the fine to be pay be no more than  sixty eight pound whereas fine of this sort be never less than from two to  three year purchase the intent of the original lessor may be collect from the  settlement which he make immediate precedent to one of the lease in question  he thereby restrain all those who shall come in after he from make any other  lease than such as be allow by the statute of Henry the seven and can it he  say that it be his intent to make a covenant which shall oblige all those who  be to represent and follow he for ever to renew and perpetuate the covenant of  renewal when he himself have by his own act incapacitate they from perpetuate  such a covenant there be several covenant in this lease to oblige the tenant  to repair and from hence likewise may be infer that no perpetual renewal be  intend for such covenant have be unnecessary in behalf of the lessor if it be  the intent of the party that the lessee upon pay a certain fine may perpetuate  the estate to himself but consider the word of the covenant the second branch  of the covenant on the part of the lessee can be take as a distinct clause  which the gentleman have do for it can signify nothing by itself and be  therefore tie down by word of reference to the first clause and the first  clause say express the life above mention which word plain relate to the life  then in be and no other no mention be make of any life that shall hereafter be  add t e word of the lessors covenant which have be so much insist on under the  same rend and covenant be design for the benefit of the lessor and mean only  that the lessee shall not compel he to renew but under the same restriction as  be in the then subsist lease they can never be construe to extend the power of  modern report renewal since the death of the original lessee for if the  covenant in the original lease will not do their business the continuation of  it never can do beside the settlement prevent any of the subsequent covenant  from operate otherwise than under the statute of Henry the seven therefore the  whole must depend upon the original modern report er p covenant and if that be  not sufficient the rest must entire fail the case of bridge v Hitchcock which  have be cite be very particular circumstance that be a lease of several old  decay mill for twentyone year which be to be pull down and rebuild in order to  set up a trade in brass and iron very great hazard be run and very great  expense incur in set up a manufactory there be a express covenant that upon  notice of six month the lease shall be renew the lessee have lie out a gross  sum of one thousand eight hundred pound upon forty pound ayear and have with  this great expense establish a trade which he can not have do but in  contemplation of have his lease renew the original intent be that it shall not  stop at the end of the first twentyone year but whether the house of lord will  decree a renewal in a three instance that be after the expiration of the three  lease which the lessor by his second have covenant that he will afterward  grant non constat it be not there decree that this covenant of renewal shall  be insert for ever through all future lease in the case of doctor Commons v  the dean and chapter of saint Paul a lease be make for ninetynine year with a  covenant of renewal under all and singular the same rend covenant and  condition upon expiration of the lease doctor Commons bring a bill for renewal  to which the dean and chapter answer that they be disable by the statute which  have be make since the lease be grant and that they have now no power to lease  for more than three life or twentyone year but it be insist that at the time  of make the first lease they be at full liberty and that that covenant be  before the statute be bind to they the opinion of this court and of the house  of lord be that the dean and chapter shall be oblige to renew for forty year  and there it be to end this plain show that it be the opinion of the house  that the original covenant shall not be construe a covenant for perpetual  renewal because as the dean and chapter be at the time of make the covenant  unrestrained by any statute and therefore have it in their power to make a  perpetual covenant if they have do so it will have be bind notwithstanding the  subsequent statute they cite also the case of hide v Skinner Peer wms upon the  whole they submit that the word of the covenant will be fulfil and satisfy by  the construction which be contend for and by the word upon the death of any of  the life abovementioned the renewal be express tie down to the expiration of  the life then in be Mr attorneygeneral reply it have be insist that the fine  to be pay be not adequate to the value of the fine for perpetual modern report  renewal in proportion to the value of the estate but it be impossible to judge  at this day whether the fine be adequate or not at that time the court must  first inquire what be the general purchase of estate at that time what be the  annual value of this estate at that time how it have be improve since c the  value of land be increase the interest of money lessen since this lease be  make and therefore it be impossible to find any judgement upon this matter as  to the merit of the case and the word of the covenant it be plain that the  first part of the covenant relate only to one renewal if it stand upon the  part of the covenant we can not be entitle to so much as the gentleman  themselves allow we and they all draw their argument from that branch of the  covenant which if their argument be conclusive do restrain we from do what  even themselves allow we a right of do the word renew such lease or lease be  inconsistent with their construction for if a add life shall drop they plain  signify that the lease shall be renew upon such death the fix upon crew hall  or the place where it now stand as the place of payment show the party to have  a perpetuity in view and show likewise great accuracy in they in settle the  place where the money shall be pay to prevent the dispute which may arise  during a perpetual renewal in the case of hide v Skinner I Peer wms the  circumstance be very uncommon and Lord Macclesfield seem to have be under  great difficulty to split the difference between the party and no judgement  ought to be deduce from such a case which be rather a matter of arbitration  than otherwise Hardwicke Lord chancellor after argument by counsel and time  take to consider of this case deliver himself to this effect the original bill  be to have the benefit of the covenant in two lease make by Mr crew the  grandfather of the modern report er p defendant for three life each of they  and to have these lease renew pursuant to the true intention of the covenant  and to have a specific performance of they that lease which be the first in  point of time be of the estate call Sandback make in to Thomas more for three  life the other lease be make the twentyfourth of October of a estate call  Elton to Cooper for three life also in each of these lease be covenant pen  exact in the same word and the first covenant be on the part of the lessee and  the second be on the part of the lessor first the lessee Thomas more covenant  for himself his executor administrator and assign with John crew his heir and  assign that the say more his executor administrator and assign or some of they  shall at the death of any of the life aforementioned which shall first happen  pay unto the say crew his heir or assign within twelve month next ensue such  death the sum of sixtyeight pound in the name of a fine to add one other life  to the other remain two life abovementioned and so to continue the renew of  the modern report lease or lease pay as aforesaid from time to time accord to  the true intent and meaning of these present this be the whole of the covenant  in each lease of the part of the lessee then follow a covenant on the part of  the lessor who for himself his heir and assign covenant and agree to and with  the say more his executor and assign that he the say crew his heir executor  and assign shall and will for the consideration of the say sum and sum of  sixtyeight pound as aforesaid to be pay to the say crew his heir or assign at  crew hall as aforesaid or at the place where the say hall now stand seal and  duly execute one or more lease or lease under the same rend and covenant with  these present and therein to add such life or life of such person or person as  shall then and at such time be nominate to be add by the say more his executor  or assign within the term or space of twelve month next after the death of any  such life as aforesaid accord to the true intent and meaning of these present  the covenant be pen in the same word in both lease and therefore there can be  no difference in this construction of they the fine be different by reason of  the different value of the estate there be one circumstance in which the lease  differ but it will not influence the determination of the case that be this  the lease in I be make at a time when Mr crew be seize in fee but the lease in  be make at a time subsequent to a voluntary settlement make by the lessor by  which he make himself tenant for life with remainder to his daughter for life  with remainder to her first and every other son in tail c who first son the  defendant S but that do not differ the equity of the plaintiff on that lease  because as the plaintiff claim for valuable consideration and the settlement  be voluntary the lessee will be consider as a purchaser of the lease and will  prevail against the voluntary settlement and the covenant will bind the land  if the plaintiff be entitle to the equity he insist on the fact which have  happen under the two lease be that none of the life drop during the life of  the lessor but after his death life drop and there have be two renewal of each  lease one of they by the defendant father and mother and the other of they by  his mother after the death of her husband and in all four of these renew life  the same covenant for renewal in hc word have be insert as be in the original  lease it have happen since that in one of the lease all the old beneficiary  and vie in the original lease be dead and in one of the lease the renewal that  be ask be on the death of a new life and not on the death of any of the old  life in the original lease on the other of the lease it have happen that the  death on which the renewal be now pray be the death of the last beneficiary  and vie in the original lease and therefore as to that it be admit that the  plaintiff be entitle to have a renewal of that lease and the only question  between the party be what be to be the term of that renewal videlicet whether  modern report the plaintiff be entitle to have this lease renew with a like  covenant of renewal as be in the original lease the first material  consideration be the true construction of these two covenant and the question  upon they will be whether the obligation on the part of the lessee to pay or  tender the fine and the obligation on the lessor to renew the lease be to  arise bare on the death of any of the life which be the beneficiary and vie  and I be of opinion that by the true construction of those covenant the  plaintiff be entitle to have a new lease with the same covenant of renewal and  that this be design to modern report er p be a continual perpetual lease this  depend on the construction of the word of the covenant and on what appear to  have be the intention of the party the covenant on the part of the lessee be  that he his executor c shall at the death of any of the life aforementioned  which shall first happen pay unto the lessor his heir and assign sixtyeight  pound as a fine to add one life to the other two remain life it have be insist  on for the defendant that this first branch of this covenant be confine to the  first life which shall drop of the life in the original lease and so it be but  however that do not influence the construction of the whole covenant because  it be admit on the part of the defendant that notwithstanding these word be so  confine to the drop of the first life of the three beneficiary and vie in the  original lease the plaintiff will be entitle to have a renewal but then what  can be the meaning of these word and so to continue the renew this lease or  lease pay as aforesaid to the say lessor his heir or assign the sum of  sixtyeight pound for every life so add or renew as aforesaid from time to time  c it be insist on for the defendant that this mean only the continue or renew  the lease by add a new life on the death of any one of the life in the  original lease and not to add a new life on the former new add life and that  that will satisfy the word of the covenant but however by any narrow  construction it may be say to satisfy the word yet I think it will not satisfy  the true construction of the covenant the word so to continue the renew this  lease or lease do not mean only to add new life on the death of any of the  beneficiary and vie but the continue the estate and fill or keep up the number  of life for that be what in common expression be mean by continue a lease bat  there be something more to show this to be the construction for it be not only  to continue the renew this lease but this lease or lease and the word or must  receive the same construction as the word and for undoubted that must be admit  on the part of the defendant that the renew this lease or lease must mean the  renew some newgranted lease suppose one of the life in the original lease die  no new life can be add by grant a separate lease but the lease must be renew  for the two life remain and a new add life or suppose another life die must  not that be renew undoubted it must and therefore the word lease or lease  modern report must be admit to comprehend some new lease and if so where will  you stop if it be so comprehend some new lease to be make by virtue of these  covenant why will it not comprehend the last lease which shall be grant on the  death of the last beneficiary and vie in the original lease and if it will  comprehend it then this be a covenant not only to renew the present lease but  all other which shall be make pursuant to these covenant if this be the true  construction of the covenant on the part of the lessee and the next  consideration be the true construction of the covenant on the part of the  lessor and he covenant that he his heir executor and assign shall and will for  the consideration of the say sum of sixtyeight pound as aforesaid to be pay to  the lessor his heir or assign at crew hall aforesaid or at the place where the  say hall now stand seal and duly execute one or more lease or lease under the  same rend and covenant with these present and therein to add such life or life  of such person or person as shall then and at such time be nominate to be add  by the lessee his executor or assign within the space of twelve month next  after the death of any such life as aforesaid here be a covenant from the  lessor to grant a new lease under the same rend and covenant with these  present which undoubted take in the covenant for renewal it have however be  insist on for the defendant that any such life as aforesaid mean the life in  the original lease but there be no word to continue it to they and I think it  mean any of the life before describe for it be not say that the lessor shall  add such life to the two remain life as it be in the covenant on the part of  the lessee but it be general that he shall grant a estate for the life of such  person as shall be nominate to be add within a year after the death of any  such life as aforesaid what be any such life as aforesaid it be large and  comprehensive enough to take in as well the add as the original life for both  of they be mention before there be two circumstance in the covenant which  favour this construction for the plaintiff one of they be that the lessor  covenant to renew the lease on payment of the fine c at crew hall or at the  place where crew hall now stand perhaps modern report er p much weight be not  to be lie on this but yet I do not think that the drawer of the lease will  imagine that crew hall will be demolish in the compass of three life I dare  say this family have not that opinion of it the other circumstance be of more  weight that in the way the defendant contend for the renewal of this lease  there never be a instance in this kingdom or in any other of any tenant  contract for such a lease the term of it be the most disadvantageous that can  be on the part of the tenant it be natural that a man shall contract for a  perpetual renewal but they say be do not do that but only for two lease for  three life but for such a lease only no man will contract in this way that on  the death of modern report any one life he shall be bind to pay his fine and  then if the new life drop he shall have no renewal but it shall remain on the  old life for if one of the old life drop he shall have a renewal in this way  the tenant must pay two fine for the renewal of his lease and yet the whole  lease determine on the death of the last life original grant that be very  natural if a man intend to have a perpetual renewal but it be not at all  natural if he contract only for two life lease but the natural way to have  contract for two lease for three life will be to have the second lease arise  on the determination of the first the next thing which deserve to be consider  be what have be object on the part of the defendant that no breach can be  assign at law in any action of covenant against the heir at law or executor of  the lessor but I be of opinion that if this be the true construction of the  covenant that at law a breach may be assign upon it and that on the word so to  continue the renew this lease or lease pay as aforesaid sixtyeight pound for  every life so add for if this mean to contract the renew every further or  future life then the not pay or tender the money will be a breach of the  covenant on the part of the tenant and if a action be bring by the lessee a  breach must be assign by not grant a lease under the same covenant on the  death of any such life which I think mean any life abovementioned and agree  the two covenant must be commensurate or coextensive with each other but if a  breach may be assign at law by either of the party the question will be  whether this be a proper case for relief in equity and I think it very proper  on two reason the one from the nature of the covenant the other from the  condition of the person seek the benefit of these covenant first from the  nature of the covenant it be to make a estate in land and consequent be one of  the most proper case that can be for equity to interpose in by way of specific  performance because this court can give the estate itself but at law nothing  can be recover but damage and therefore the relief here be high and more  adequate than at law second in respect to the condition of the person for  these reason if a action be bring at law it can only be against the executor  or administrator of the original lessor or against his heir at law if he have  asset the defendant be his heir at law but perhaps he have no asset because  the whole estate be settle and if this be the case then the representative  ought to recover against the heir at law out of real asset descend when in  equity this be a covenant which bind the land and go along with it and  therefore this court give relief against the proper person who be in  possession of this estate attend with this lie upon it whereas at law  satisfaction will be recover against he who in pure equity and justice be not  the person who ought to make it modern report it be insist for the defendant  that these covenant of perpetual renewal be not to be favour because they take  the estate from the owner of the inheritance this may be in part true but  however contract for valuable consideration must be perform the original  lessor may have grant the whole fee or have charge it in such manner as he  please and the only question be whether he have do it if he have it ought to  be support there be several instance wherein this court have decree perpetual  renewal be not to be but it be object that the fine give by the tenant be not  adequate and that that be such a ingredient in the case as will induce the  court not to decree a specific performance but on the evidence nothing  excessive or very disadvantageous to either party have appear but it be a much  more favourable case than some of modern report er p those in which most such  renewal have be decree in the case of hide v Skinner Westminster though the  court do not decree a perpetual renewal yet they decree a new lease and that  notwithstanding the original lease have be once renew and yet neither in the  case of bridge v Hitchcock in the house of lord be there any fine to be pay  upon the renewal as there be in the present case and that a very large one of  sixtyeight pound for every renewal of one of the lease and for the other  wherein the lessor have take care that his successor in the estate shall have  a consideration pay on every renewal which make it a much more favourable case  than where it be to be without any fine another objection be that the  plaintiff ask a renewal of this lease with the like covenant of renewal as in  the other lease and that can be and that it must have be in prospect of the  party that the successor in the estate must not be in a condition of give such  a estate or of lie their heir under a obligation to do a thing which from the  nature of their estate they can not but in answer to this it be right say at  bar that when such renewal be make they arise out of the original covenant  give by the first lessor who have power to bind the land and these covenant  run along with it and I do not imagine that the covenant be agreeable to the  nature of this estate and the court will not decree he to enter into any  covenant far than his estate go it will be unreasonable that the defendant who  be but tenant for life shall covenant that he and his heir will from time to  time renew this lease but be shall covenant that be and all claim under he  shall renew it and the original lease shall be deposit with the master so that  it may appear on what foundation it be subsist another fact in this case be  that there have be two renewal of these lease one by the father and mother of  the present defendant and the other by his mother and those have be each of  they with covenant in the same word as these in the original lease though the  lessors who renew be but tenant for life that be a inaccuracy but  notwithstanding that and though the defendant be not bind by it yet it show  what be the modern report sense of the family for though these renewal be only  on the drop of the life in the original lease yet the give such a covenant for  renewal show their apprehension to be that it be a covenant for a perpetual  renewal the authority which have be cite be but few and do not come up to the  present case one be the case of doctor Commons v the dean and chapter of saint  Paul a lease be make on February for ninetynine year before the disable  statute of Elizabeth in which be a covenant that if the lessee or their  successor shall at any time during the ninetynine year surrender the say lease  that on request the dean and chapter the lessors or their successor shall  grant another new lease of the premise for the fine of twenty pound for a  number of so many year and with all and singular such covenant and condition  contain in the original lease after this the statute Elizabeth c enact that  all lease by body corporate for a long term than twentyone year or three life  shall be void a bill be bring in chancery for a term of forty year against the  dean and chapter to have a renewal of this lease on the same term and covenant  as be in the original lease but the house of lord decree the lease to be make  by the dean and chapter for a term of forty year agreeable to the power they  have in Elizabeth c city and markettown but without any covenant for renew  again that be on a particular reason that by some of the restrain statute  these body corporate be restrain from give bind or covenant in consideration  to the statute that restrain lease because that be one way of evade these  statute and therefore the latter restrain statute have make these bind and  covenant void therefore the house of lord will not decree new covenant which  will have be void and contrary to the statute as to the case of hide v Skinner  a Peer wms see also Russell v Darvin brown c c notorious facts cook v booth  Cowp and Tritton v foot bro c c a cite for the defendant that can be make use  of as a authority in this case nor indeed can it hardly be make use of as a  authority in any there the lease be for five year with a covenant to renew  without any fine to be pay on the renewal of the same rend and covenant and  for modern report er p such term as the lessee shall desire the administrator  of the lessee demand a lease for fifty year on the general word of the  covenant and Lord Macclesfield be of opinion that there shall be a renewal but  not for so long a term and therefore decree a lease for twenty one year on the  generality of the word of the covenant there be no ground to refuse the  plaintiff the term of year which he ask and there be nothing which appear to  reduce it to any other term but the original lease and that be for five year  for which term also it have be once renew and therefore this be rather a  compromise than a decree modern report the case of bridge v Hitchcock decree  in the house of lord June come near to the present case than any that have be  cite in that case the covenant be that if the lessee his executor  administrator or assign shall at any time thereafter be mind to renew and take  a further lease of the premise that on application make before the last six  month of the term the lessor his heir or assign shall grant such further lease  as shall be desire by the lessee his executor or administrator without any  fine and under the same rend and covenant e a bill be bring for the renewal  and the question be whether it shall be a renewal with a insertion of a  covenant to renew or whether the word under the same rend and covenant shall  not be confine to the ordinary covenant of payment of the rend repair or the  like and the exchequer direct a new lease to be make with the same covenant  for a renewal which be in the former lease and that decree be affirm in the  house of lord that case be liable to more objection than the present because  there be nothing but a covenant on the part of the lessor and none on the part  of the lessee and therefore it will be reasonable say that the same rend and  covenant mean the common covenant attendant on lease and not to take in the  covenant for a renewal in the present case there be mutual covenant the lessee  covenant to pay his fine and the time and place for payment of it be ascertain  but in the case of bridge v Hitchcock no fine be to be pay on the renewal but  it be argue for the defendant that in that case there shall have be great  improvement and that it be consider as a buildinglease and no doubt but that  have great force in the case but yet that reason do not extend so far as the  decree go if they have build on that only they may have grant another term for  twentyone year and that will have be think a very reasonable satisfaction for  the improvement consequent the argument draw from the improvement can not be  that on which the decree be find which be by a perpetual renewal and therefore  it must rest on the construction of the word of the covenant agreeable to this  authority and the construction of the covenant I must decree a renewal of  these lease under the same rend and covenant that be in the original lease but  these covenant must be reduce to such as the defendant from the nature of his  estate can enter into