case llhoyd against Langford approve baker v Gostling bing n c if a lessee for  year redemise his whole term to the lessor with a reservation of rend it  operate as a surrender of the original lease and therefore he can maintain  debt for rend against the executor of the original lessor but must seek relief  in equity but if a lessee assign his whole term to a stranger he may bring  debt for the rend reserve on the contract against he or his personal  representative a special verdict the case be a be tenant in fee of land demise  the same to b for seven ear b redemises the same land to a for the say term of  seven year reserve twenty pound rend per annum a die his wife enter as  guardian to the heir of a her son and receive the profit b bring debt against  her as executrix de son tort in the debet el to hold off the question be  whether this action will lie or not Baldwin sergeant who argue for the  plaintiff hold that it do lie for though the rend reserve in this case do not  attend the reversion because the lessee have assign over all his term yet a  action of debt will lie for that rend upon the contract cro James Witton v buy  Edward pl Edward pl covenant will lie upon the word yield and pay if then here  be a good rend reserve the wife who receive the profit become executrix de son  tort and so be liable to the payment it have be hold that there can be a  executor de son tort of a term but the modern opinion be otherwise as it be  hold in the case of porter v Sweetman Trinity term in the king bench a style  Godolp a and modern that a action of debt will lie against he indeed such a  executor can be of a term infutur and that be the resolution in the case of  Kenrick v burgess more b Godolp b where in ejectment upon not guilty plead it  appear that one Okehain have a lease for year of the land in question who die  intestate which lease his wife assign by parole to burgess and then she take  out letter of administration and assign it again to Kenrick who by the opinion  of the court have the best title but if one enter as executor de son tort and  sell good the sale be good c say vide show c which be not so in this case  because there be a term in reversion whereof no entry can be make for which  reason there can be no executor de son tort to that and therefore the sale to  burgess before the administration be hold void and that there may be a  executor de son tort of a term there be a late case of Stevens v car adjudge  in Trinity term car which be lessee for year render rend die intestate his  wife take out letter of administration and afterward marry a second husband  the wife die and the husband continue in possession and receive the profit it  be agree that for the profit receive he be answerable as executor de son tort  and the book of Henry be cite as a authority to prove it Pemberton sergeant  for the defendant will not undertake to answer these point which be argue on  the other side but admit they to be plain against he for he do not doubt but  that debt will lie upon the contract where the whole term be assign and that  there may be a executor de son tort of a term but he say that which be the  principal point in the case be not stir the question be whether a action of  debt will lie against the defendant as executor de son tort where there be no  term at all for it be plain there be none in be in this case because modern er  p when the lessee redemised his whole term to the lessor that be a surrender  in law and as full as if it have be actual surrender and therefore this be  quite different from the case where lessee for year make a assignment of his  whole term to a stranger debt will lie upon the contract there because a  interest passes to he in reversion and as to this purpose a term be in be by  the contract of the party and so it will here against the first lessor who be  lessee upon the redemise but now because of the surrender the heir be entitle  to enter and the modern mother who be the defendant enter in his right as  guardian which she may lawful do if therefore debt only lie upon the contract  of the testator as in truth it do where the whole term be go the plaintiff can  charge any one as executor de son tort in the debet el to hold off and the  whole term be go here by the redemise which be a absolute surrender and not  upon condition for in such case the surrender may have enter for  nonperformance and so it may have be revive and of this opinion be the whole  court in both point and will not bear any far argument in the case the  plaintiff have no remedy at law the court tell he that he may seek for relief  in chancery if he think fit