case Philpot versus hoar and Robinson November see Hopkinson v Lovering Q b d  SC Amb a lessee for year at pound rend who have covenant for himself his  executor and administrator but not assign that he will not without the lessors  consent assign over the lease become a bankrupt the defendant hoar the  assignee under the commission enter the farm sell off the crop and stock pay  the Michaelmas rend and the day before the next rentday assign over the lease  to Robinson the bill be bring to oblige mrs hoar to keep the lease during the  term it appear in proof that Robinson never plough or sow the land never  reside on the farm but occupy it rather as a agent Lord Hardwicke hold it to  be a fraudulent transaction between mrs hoar and Robinson and decree her to  answer the rend to the time and the assignment to be set aside a lease be make  by the plaintiff for eleven year at a rack rend of pound in lessee covenant  for himself his executor and administrator that he his executor and  administrator but do not mention assign will not without the express consent  of the lessor assign over the lease and afterward become a bankrupt the  defendant be choose assignee under the commission and enter on this farm be  particular bill but this be a bill for if after I do not think he may be amend  atkins er p assign to her as part of the bankrupt estate sell off the crop and  the stock and pay the Michaelmas rend and the day before the next rentday  videlicet on the that of march have receive but a little profit from the term  for this half year assign over the lease to the defendant Robinson subject to  the rend and covenant in the lease the bill be bring to prevent the assignee  of bankrupt from assign the lease and to oblige her to keep it during the term  Lord chancellor I be clear of opinion the defendant shall answer for the half  year rend due at ladyday the day after the assignment on account of the profit  upon the authority of the case in vern treacle v coke in that case a assignee  of a lease render rend have enjoy the land six year assign over the bill be to  call he to a account for the rend for such time and Lord keeper hold he be  liable in equity for the rend during the time he enjoy the land N B the  counsel allege there be precedent and Lord keeper north say if there have not  be one he shall not have doubt to have make a precedent in this case e t vide  valiant v Dodemede post as to the accrueing rend it be a point of more  difficulty for the covenant in this lease not to assign do not run with the  land to the assignee because assignee be not bind by name in the covenant  notwithstanding the doubt entertain in the case of Stanhope v Skeggs cite in  dougl n term Rep I think the case will warrant the follow observation with  respect to proviso and covenant not to assign without the consent of the  lessor it seem settle that the mere act of a lease vest in a assignee by  operation of law such as executor administrator c can never be consider as a  forfeiture under the proviso or covenant not to assign for if such act of vest  shall be consider as a breach the lease must in fact determine by the death of  the lessee which can never be the intention of the party unless so particular  express especial as the habendum of the lease general limit it to the lessee  his executor administrator and assign vide Parry v Herbert dyer b pl ibidem b  pl Crusoe v Rugby will Doug the real question in these case appear to be  whether the alienation of the assignee by operation of law can be deem a  forfeiture and that depend upon the follow distinction saint if the covenant  or proviso extend to the lessee only then a assignee by law be not within it  and he may assign without incur a forfeiture dyer b pl Cox v brown cham Rep  seer v hind Ves junr ndly if it extend to the lessee his executor and  administrator then all of they be bind by it roe v Harrison term Rep but with  respect to this last rule as the covenant or proviso do not extend to the  lessee his executor administrator and assign assignee under a commission of  bankruptcy be not bind by it Philpot v hoar above gore v Warner Eq ab pl which  latter case I have examine with the register book and I find it correct Reg  lib a fol dly but if the covenant or proviso express name the lessee and his  assign then it seem from the word of Lord Hardwicke in the above case of  Philpot v hoar and from the determination in sir William more be case cro  Elizabeth that all assignee by operation of law be within it note it be say  the difficulty in Stanhope v Skeggs arise upon the doubt whether a clause of  restraint can operate upon executor so as to prevent they from assign land  which be express lease to the original tenant and his executor eastern nomin  when that be the only mean by which they can exercise their trust term Rep but  that difficulty seem to have be do away by the above notice case of roe v  Harrison atkins the covenant which run with the land will bind the assignee  but I do not say this be such a covenant the defendant Robinson be not produce  the assignment show fraud and make it very suspicious there be no assignment  yet if the plaintiff have accept any rend from Robinson it will have bind he  to accept he as tenant the case of landlord be of very great consequence and  if such a contrivance be allow to prevail especial near this town landlord be  in a very bad condition in regard to covenant in lease it appear in proof that  the defendant mrs hoar know Robinson to be insolvent he be misrepresent in the  assignment for he be call of Warburton in Lincolnshire grazier at the same  time he live at Westminster he never plough or sow the land never reside on  the farm but occupy it rather as a agent nor do I believe he ever have the  assignment in his hand take these circumstance together it look like a  collusive assignment therefore I shall decree mrs hoar the defendant to answer  the rend to this time as it be a fraudulent transaction and likewise the  assignment itself to be set aside his lordship direct at first a action to be  bring in a quantum injure against the defendant mrs hoar for remove the stover  from off the farm a action of covenant he say will not lie as there be no  privity between the defendant and the lessor but in order to prevent any  further litigation his lordship propose that in consideration of pay the  plaintiff all the rend which be due the lease for the residue of the term  shall be void and the plaintiff take the farm into his own hand which the  party agree to accord atkins er p