case Philpot against hoar and Robertson distinguish Onslow v Corrie mad  Hopkinson v Lovering Q b d covenant by lessee not to assign without licence do  not bind the assignee of the lessee under a commission of bankruptcy in case  he make a fair assignment in this case the assignment be fraudulent and hold  the assignee under the Commission continue liable to the rend after he have  assign No entry in l r S c atk Cox ms lib r foe in Chaicery that Nov the  plaintiff by indenture of the that December lease two farm call brockhill and  Grubbs to ware for a term of year at pound ayear rend in which be insert the  usual and proper covenant on the part of the tenant and also that he his  executor or administrator shall not assign the lease or any part of the  premise without the consent of the plaintiff in write ware enter and afterward  become a bankrupt a commission issue and the defendant mrs hoar be choose  assignee and the bankrupt estate and effect be all assign to her mrs hoar  occupy the farm and there be half a year rend due at Michaelmas the plaintiff  bring a action against her for it to which she plead a false plea of a  assignment to one Meddlicot but afterward submit to pay the rend bill by the  plaintiff to compel the defendant hoar to pay the arrear and grow payment and  to make satisfaction for breach of covenant ambler after the bill file mrs  hoar pay the halfyear rend and cost of suit and after have twice advertise the  good and the stock to be sell dispose of the good and on the that march in  consideration of S assign the lease to the defendant Robertson who be a  insolvent person there be another half year rend due at ladyday a supplemental  bill be file in the may follow for the same purpose as the original bill and  also to set aside the assignment to Robertson there be strong proof of  robertson insolvency that the farm have be neglect and plunder that he have no  stock upon the farm nor furniture in the house that he be ambler er p seldom  at the farm and some declaration of robertson that he be only agent for Mr  hoar and be to be indemnified by her see errington v Aynesley bro c c city of  London v Nash atk Ves see Rayner v stone Eden two question be make in this  cause saint whether mrs hoar as assignee of the bankrupt be bind by the  covenant in the lease not to assign without the consent of the plaintiff and  that the assignment to Robertson without his consent be consequent void d  suppose her not bind by that covenant whether the assignment to Robertson be a  fair or fraudulent assignment it be argue upon the saint question that a court  of equity will in many instance decree a performance in specie on covenant  which bind the interest of the land and not leave the party to a remedy at law  by way of damage as suppose a lease of a house and the lessor for the benefit  of himself and his other tenant next adjoin shall take a covenant from the  lessee not to assign to a person use a particular trade which may be a  nuisance to the neighbour the lessee become bankrupt this court will enjoin  the assignee of the bankrupt not to assign to such person it be against the  term of the lease that the covenant in this lease do not take away the power  of assignment but only prevent the lessee or those claim under he from deliver  up the estate to a unfit person who the lessor do not approve ambler that  there be great reason for a court of equity to interpose in this case because  the plaintiff can not by any mean prevent the lease from vest in mrs hoar if  she require it that the estate of the bankrupt do upon the assignment of the  commissioner vest in the assignee by operation of law and the lessor can  therefore enter for a forfeiture on such assignment this distinction between a  assignment in law and a assignment by act of the party be strong lie down in  the case of very v Hulbert die where it be hold that the devise of a term be a  forfeiture of such a covenant and say it be clear that if the term have  descend to the executor it have be no forfeiture it be also argue that Mr hoar  may take a general assignment with the consent of the commissioner with a  exception of this term in which case the legal interest have be leave in the  bankrupt and mrs hoar will not have be liable to the covenant in the lease for  nothing vest till the assignment from the commissioner and till that be make  the legal estate remain unaltered in the present case mrs hoar have elect to  take the term have enter upon and take the profit of the premise and as she  have elect to take the benefit of the estate she ought to hold it under the  term of the lease if this practice be allow it will introduce the great  inconvenience and fraud as tenant by deal in other matter beside their proper  business become liable to the bankrupt law and if their assignee be allow to  assign at pleasure notwithstanding such covenant landlord may be put to the  necessity and a new expense to buy up their own lease in order to regain  possession of their estate to second question it be not to be dispute in a  court of equity that such a assignee notwithstanding such her assignment over  be at least liable to answer for the rend and breach of covenant during her  own occupation though she be discharge at law that there be several precedent  in this court of that kind appear by the case of treach v coke vern assignee  of a lease render rend assign over bill bring to account for the rend for such  time as he enjoy the estate ambler though the privity be destroy in law and it  be urge that they be twenty precedent of the kind that in the present case  there be half a year rend due at the time of the assignment but where a person  fraudulent assign over he ought to be not only liable to perform the covenant  in the lease during his own occupation but to answer the grow rend and breach  of covenant do by his assignee if it be otherwise a person may avail himself  of a fraudulent act which be the subversion of justice and it be the great  care of this court to prevent fraud of all kind that the defendant hoar intend  by the assign the premise to Robertson to prevent the plaintiff from have any  benefit of the lease full appear on the other side it be argue upon the first  question that there be no express word in the covenant to affect the defendant  hoar and it not be a covenant that run with the land she be not bind by it to  the second question the defendant hoar be concern no otherwise than as  assignee under a commission of bankruptcy and consequent a trustee have no  other remedy to discharge herself but by assign ambler er p that a assignment  to a he roper person be no proof of a fraud especial in a assignee who be  Chargeable only in privity of estate that the plaintiff may have enter for  nonpayment of rend which he do not shall he then oblige the defendant to hold  where there be no privity of contract and especial as she have not a  sufficiency out of the bankrupt estate the assignment be make the day before  the rend become due be no evidence of fraud for there be no profit of the land  between Michaelmas and ladyday that there be no evidence that Robertson be a  trustee for hoar Lord Hardwicke chancellor this case be of great consequence  to landlord who make lease of farm in respect of the security they ought to  have and especial as to farm near London and if these contrivance shall  prevail landlord will not be safe tenant nigh London frequent run into trade  and become bankrupt and no covenant take by landlord can make they secure note  but to avoid the consequence of bankruptcy a landlord may make a proviso that  the lease shall determine upon the bankruptcy of the tenant roe v Galliers t r  church v brown Ves there be proper covenant in this lease for ambler manage  the land and a covenant that the lessee his executor or administrator shall  not assign there be no proof that the lease be not a reasonable lease the  tenant in August become bankrupt and the commissioner make a general  assignment of his effect it have be say that the commissioner need not to have  assign nor the assignee under the commission bind to accept such lease but I  lie no stress upon this after the commissioner have assign mrs hoar enter not  only to take the crop but advertise the lease to be sell there be no proof  that there have be no bidder nor of application that the lease shall be sell  before the commissioner mrs hoar have dispose of the stock of the farm neglect  to occupy under the covenant in the lease a action be bring for the Michaelmas  rend hoar plead a sham assignment and afterward submit still continue  possession to the that march and then assign to Robertson and the date of the  assignment be write upon a razure the defendant hoar will have it suppose that  Robertson be to take the lease charge with the arrear of rend and insist that  she be Chargeable only during the privity of her estate as to arrear of rend  for the halfyear due at ladyday I be clear of opinion that the plaintiff have  a remedy for they in this court it be say she make no profit during this  halfyear but the farm consist of arable and pasture and it appear she have  take the profit case in vern be a proper authority she be to answer the  halfyear rend and not to account for the profit as for the subsequent profit  to this time and for the time to come it have be insist by the plaintiff that  the covenant not to assign bind mrs hoar or if it do not that her assignment  be fraudulent I be of opinion that the covenant not to assign do not bind her  at law for the meaning of the covenant be to restrain the lessee from assign  over and in general it will be a hard case to prevent assignee of a bankrupt  from assign but it be otherwise in the case of a fraudulent assignment in this  case the fraud do appear by the plaintiff proof and from the defect of proof  on the part of the defendant which last must be take into consideration if it  have be prove that the rend reserve have be too great or that mrs hoar have  offer to surrender ambler the lease to the landlord it will have go a great  way with I it have be say that the lessor may have reenter but then he must  have lose part of his rend nor can have be secure but that mrs hoar will have  come and ask in this court that she may hold on pay the arrear instead of do  as she ought she assign to a insolvent person Thomas Robertson be style of  Lincolnshire in the assignment he be only a lodger in Westminster how be this  assignment prove No proof of any treaty north at the assignment be ever  deliver to Robertson the manner of his manage the farm be further evidence of  fraud I refer to the proof how he have act not like one who mean to occupy but  as agent for mrs hoar by come down a night or two at a time add to this his  declaration which be plain evidence against himself upon the whole I be of  opinion that mrs hoar be liable to answer the rend to this time as to the  breach of covenant they must be try upon a quantum injure gore v Warner Eq can  Abr vin Abr do d Crusoe v Bugby will do v Bevan m S Onslow v Corrie mad Ves  Weatherall v jeer Ves see in roe v Galliers t r ambler er p Eden b l do v  clarke east see Brummell v Macpherson Ves Wilkins v fry Merriv do they  Mitchinson v carter t r see Mr sander note to this case atk and a assignment  of the lease by the assignee to a insolvent person for the purpose of  exonerate themselves from future claim for rend be not such a fraudulent  assignment as will render it invalid Onslow v Corrie mad and see that case  distinguish from the present ib p see tailor v Shum Bos pull valiant v  Dondomede atk Le Keux v Nash Str pitcher v tovey Carth S c salk vent  chancellor v pool dougl Odell v wake Campb n p and the Geo c S make no  difference in this respect see Onslow v Corrie ub sup