case cross against young Hilary term car roll on a covenant for quiet  enjoyment free from all lawful interruption a breach assign that the defendant  claim title and lawful right under a b enter c be sufficient for it be not a  breach from the act of a stranger but of the covenantor himself debt upon a  bind for sixty pound the defendant crave oyer of the condition which be for  performance of covenant in a certain indenture and for plea say that the  indenture be c and so set forth the whole and the covenant on the defendant  the lessors part videlicet shower KB that the plaintiff his heir and assign  for ever shall and may have bold use occupy possess and enjoy the say premise  without the lawful let impediment hindrance interruption or disturbance of he  the say defendant his heir or assign or any other person or person lawful  claim or to claim by from or under he they or either of they c and plead  performance general the plaintiff reply protest that the defendant have not  observe and perform c et pro plea to say quod post confection indenture  pillage et ante display billae pillage videlicet on the first day of march in  the thirtysixth year of Charles the first the say defendant claim of law et  distinction ad et in trigint made of twigs striped terrae England landyards  parcel pillage enclosed space c sub in Richardo Brodrippe without to some  place jure distinction well authority insert ab eoden quer in easden trigint  made of twigs striped terrae in et super possession Self quer ind to go into  ac Self quer a possession et occupation ind adtunc ejeci et anovit ac Self to  express grief such ind drive out et move away a possession svan ind  extratenuit et thus far extratenet contra form et effect indenture pillage per  quod idem to express grief pillage trigint a but now by and will c S and Ann c  no commission patent or grant either civil or military shall determine by the  demise of the crown but shall continue in force for six month after such  demise unless soon determine by the next immediate succession to the crown and  by Geo c the commission of judge shall continue and remain in full force  during their good behaviour notwithstanding the king demise b by Ann c S no  original writ writ of nisi prius process or proceed whatsoever in or issue out  of any court of equity nor any process or proceed upon any office or  inquisition nor any certiorari or habeas corpus nor any writ of attachment or  process for contempt shall be determine by the demise of the crown stram  shower KB er p made of twigs striped c to have rashly et to rejoice non to be  able nec thus far to be able second form et effect indenture pillage et hoc a  preparation be verify c unde c the defendant rejoin that he do not enter on  any part of the premise c et de hoc to put down see super native land issue be  join thereupon and try at the last assize and verdict for the plaintiff Mr  keen move in arrest of judgement that the breach be not well assign for that  the plaintiff have not set forth a title in the defendant and by consequence  his entry be tortuous and he a trespasser and so no covenant will lie the  covenant be for quiet enjoyment free from all lawful interruption and the  breach assign be only to call distinction et law legate sub John c and cite a  case in roll Abr title condition to that purpose I move afterward for  judgement for that this be the entry and eviction of the covenantor himself  and not a breach assign upon the act of a stranger in which case we ought to  be more precise and particular than in the other here be nothing can be  pretend to make any colourable objection but the word lawful for be it omit  all the book shower KB do then agree that a tortuous entry by the lessor  himself will be a breach of the covenant for enjoyment though otherwise in the  case of a stranger because against he another action lie videlicet trespass he  be the wrong doer and in the case of a stranger the plaintiff be as privy to  his title as the defendant and therefore if he will find a action thereon it  be incumbent upon he to set forth the title and I urge the case of Tisdale v  Essex a in which the covenant be for enjoyment and a breach be assign in the  entry of a stranger without show a good title and it be resolve express that  where the breach be assign in the entry of a stranger there the plaintiff  ought to show a title in the stranger otherwise where the breach be allege in  the entry of the lessor himself but here the Lord chief justice interrupt I  and say that it be a difference constant allow and that against the party  himself they will not consider the word lawful nor drive the plaintiff to his  action of trespass when by the general imply covenant in law he have engage no  way to avoid his own deed either by a rightful or a tortuous entry and so we  have judgement for the plaintiff for who I intend to have further urge the  case of core b covenant for quiet enjoyment and afterward the lessor enter  tortiously yet hold to be a good breach of covenant for the intent be that he  shall enjoy it without any interruption of the lessor himself and without any  rightful interruption of any other person and the reason why in case of a  stranger entry the title must be show be because there the plaintiff be as  privy to the title as the defendant be they be both alike stranger thereto and  it will be hard to punish the innocent and pass by the wrongdoer but here the  defendant himself be the very doer and the title he enter by be only know to  himself we be not privy to it and therefore not incumbent on we to show it now  that even a tortuous entry of the covenantor himself will be a breach of  covenant for quiet enjoyment be plain from the book I have cite and also  shower KB from f n b b if the lessor lease a term by deedpoll and the lessor  oust the lessee he shall have a writ of covenant upon this deed though he have  no indenture of it but if a stranger who have no right do oust the lessee he  shall have no writ of covenant against the lessor because he have another  remedy by action against the immediate wrongdoer but if a stranger enter by a  old title then he shall have covenant against the lessor himself because he  have no remedy beside and Henry be express that if the lessor eject his lessee  covenant will lie be the right how it will there be the case of cave v  Brookesby c where the defendant lease land to the plaintiff and covenant that  they be free from lawful encumbrance and that they be and shall continue of  the value of so much a year to the lessee during the term the lessor enter on  the lessee and ousts he the lessee bring covenant and adjudge that it lie for  when the lessor enter they can continue of that value because the lessor have  the profit but if a stranger without a title have enter it will have be  otherwise and this be the very difference of the book it be but of late year  that it have be adjudge no breach in case of a stranger entry c for in the  case of Catesby v Mountford d it be adjudge that the tortuous a more b roll  Abr SC cro Elizabeth c Jones d Elizabeth dyer and Leon shower KB er p entry of  a stranger be a breach of a covenant against interruption and for quiet  enjoyment but since that here it have be adjudge otherwise in case of stranger  but never yet come so far as to be rule so in case of entry and eviction by  the lessor that a covenant against a particular person by express name will be  a defence against such person S entry whether by right or wrong all the book  do agree and so be Edward and foster v Mapes e now the covenant in law be  against himself by express name and then the word lawful can no way alter the  case for in the case of Huys v Bickerstaff f it be resolve that if the word be  omit in such covenant it must notwithstanding be so intend and that when a man  covenant for enjoyment shower KB without interruption it must be mean not  against the tortuous act of stranger but only against their rightful entry and  if a stranger enter covenant will not lie unless he have a right because there  be another remedy against the immediate trespasser so that it be the same  thing as if it be out of the case for it be no more than the law will have  imply and suppose that word out of the case then it be most plain that a  tortuous entry of the lessor will be a breach of the covenant without the word  lawful in it and consequent there be no reason why it shall not be a breach  when it be so express it be no more than the law will otherwise have imply but  beside this entry and eviction by the defendant himself here be sure a breach  of the covenant in law imply in the word give and grant which be a general  covenant against all person I confess that the particular covenant as in the  case of Nokes g will restrain and qualify such general covenant as to stranger  and other person and their act but as to the lessor himself it remain the same  as it be before by the covenant in law he have engage that we shall enjoy it  against himself and without the lawful entry or interruption of any stranger  but because that be against all man therefore come the particular covenant and  explain it only to extend to those who claim by from or under he but what  concern the act of the lessor continue the same and be not qualify by the  particular covenant and in Nokes case it be resolve that the plaintiff have  his election to sue either upon the covenant in law or upon the express  covenant now upon the first a wrongful entry of the lessor himself will be a  breach and upon the express covenant when general without the word lawful a  tortuous entry of the lessor will be a breach and our covenant be no more than  that covenant as well as deed be to be expound ut res to greater extent to be  strong how to pass away thought a part and most for the advantage of the party  with who the covenant be make and against the covenantor and the office of  express covenant be to assist further and support shower KB the grant and be  as the Lord Hobart call it h a wall or muniment about the grant and shall  therefore never be construe to impugn or contradict it or to leave the lessor  a great liberty to avoid his own deed by his own wrongful act more than he  have before the general covenant be not restrain or qualify by the express  covenant as to the matter or substance but only as to the extent of it what  person shall be bind thereby but here a enjoyment of the land without eviction  by the lessor himself be the very principal substance of the agreement that be  the very purport of the conveyance and therefore can be qualify by a after  covenant for if it be such after covenant will be contrary to the word of the  grant which import a defence and warranty against the lessor himself most  express and in some case it be adjudge that n express covenant shall not  restrain the covenant in law as in the case of proctor v Johnson I where the  express covenant be for quiet enjoyment notwithstanding any act do by he or  any claim under he and the breach assign be that a give this land to the  defendant and I S joint and that I S the other jointtenant have in his  lifetime convey his moiety to I n who have enter c and rule a good breach and  that the general covenant be not restrain by the express one because contrary  to the general intendment of their agreement and undertake which be to convey  the whole land now in our case the original and first agreement be for  enjoyment against the lessor himself for the main body of the deed be nothing  but a agreement that the lessor shall quit the possession of his land and that  the lessee e cro Elizabeth f Vaugh g   h in the earl of Clanrickards case hob  I Yelv SC I Bulst shower KB er p shall enjoy it without be evict by the lessor  therefore be it that the deed be make this be the prime intendment of the  indenture and to restrain this now by a qualify covenant as to the lessor  himself be as much a contradiction of the word of the grant as a exception of  one acre out of ten acre before demise but shower KB suppose that it must be a  lawful title that he must enter by to break this covenant here it be we have  say that he ipse pillage defendens to call of law et distinction sub in John  Goodrippe do enter and evict we and yet hold we out contrary to his indenture  per quod we can not enjoy the same accord to the tenor thereof we can say no  more his title lie in his own notice not in we and now I hope it will be  intend we have say that he enter and that he enter without any title or  authority derive by or from we so that that objection be go which be the true  reason of all the case wherein the title be adjudge necessary to be show  videlicet because for ought appear it may be by title under the plaintiff and  this be the true reason of the case of Hansaker v Kirby king and of Wotton v  heel l but here be no room for such presumption in our case for we have say  that it be without any authority or title derive from or under we beside in  all case of breach of covenant by the lessor himself they be all allege  general and not one otherwise in salmon v Bradshaw m which be covenant of have  lawful right to c and breach allege that he have not c et such to break off c  and upon writ of error it be move that he ought to have show what person have  the right and estate that so it may appear to the court whether the defendant  have c but hold well enough for that it concern the defendant himself and that  it lie more proper in the notice of the lessor than of the plaintiff who be a  stranger to the defendant title then there be the case of Muscot v ballet n  breach assign that he be not seize in fee general and show not what estate or  that any other be seize and hold good and here we have say all we can all that  we can be presume privy to we say it be without any title under the plaintiff  and now it must be intend a lawful title because say to be contrary to the  indenture and beside that be admit by the plead for they come and say they do  not enter and so waive the other matter shower KB and there be a verdict for  we after which to maintain the action you will I hope intend it a rightful  title if such be needful we have also say that by reason of this eviction we  can not and can enjoy the premise accord to the deed and the jury have find it  so that be the case of Gill v glass oh debt for rend upon a lease the  defendant the lease not be by indenture plead that the plaintiff nothing to  have in property c the plaintiff reply that he have a good and sufficient  estate c a issue be take thereupon and a verdict for the plaintiff and error  assign that the plaintiff ought to have show that he have a sufficient estate  and what to which the court agree but say that it be aid by the verdict for  though the replication and issue be ill yet there be a issue try it ought now  to end the matter the issue be upon a material point whether he enter and  evict we or no and the verdict in our case find this true that he enter  contrary to the form of the indenture and therefore that be supply by this  verdict a verdict will supply many a omission as in the case of Reynolds v  buckle p debt for rend the defendant plead that before any rend be due the  plaintiff enter upon he but do not say that he expel or hold he out and so  issue be take upon non to go into and find for the defendant and he have  judgement for he though his plea be insufficient yet the verdict have supply  it now both these last case be much like to we and for the case urge on the  other side they be breach assign upon the entry of stranger which come not  near our case and such where the evictor may for ought appear derive a title  from the plaintiff himself and all the reason which govern those case be want  in we as that the plaintiff know the title of the ejector as well as the  defendant and that the innocent will be punish for the wrong of a three person  here it be his own act and he himself be the wrongdoer and if by wrong or if  by title it be his own and the plaintiff not privy to it and so for the other  reason that shower KB there will be a double remedy against two person they  all fail in our case king cro James l side SC Mod m   SC cro James n cro James  oh Yelv SC cro James p hob shower KB er p this I have prepare to urge but be  prevent by a ready judgement for the plaintiff by the whole court