case noke against awder ante page case in a action of covenant by a assignee  the declaration need not show the deed of assignment provide the subject in  dispute may he assign without a deed although the covenant on which the action  be bring ought to be by deed ante more   Mod the assignee of a lease which  appear to be good only by estoppel can maintain a action on the covenant ante  more   a shower lev term Rep it be now move again and all the justice agree  that the assignee shall have a action of covenant without show any deed of the  assignment for it be a covenant which run with the estate and the estate be  pass without deed the assignee shall have the benefit of the covenant also and  the executor of the baron who be assignee in law who come in without deed  shall have the benefit of such a covenant as appear Edward in Symkins simonds  ease and Popham and Fenner hold that a feoff shall vouch by a warranty make to  his feoff without show any deed of assignment for the deed of assignment be  not requisite nor be it to any purpose to croak Elizabeth show it for it  appear by the book that be show it be not traversable by the vouchee and as a  warranty or covenant be not grantable nor to he assign over without the estate  so when the estate passes although it he by parole the warranty and covenant  ensue it and the assignee of the estate shall have the benefit thereof coke  attorneygeneral who be of counsel with the defendant say that the law be clear  as you have take it yet the declaration be ill for he declare quod she  Johannes king Elizabeth let that to the defendant for year army cum law he be  possess and grant it to ahel by indenture with the covenant who in Elizabeth  assign it to the plaintiff and further allege that long time before that the  say I king have any thing one Rohert king be seize in fee videlicet Elizabeth  and so seize die seize in Elizabeth and it descend to Thomas king who enter  upon the plaintiff and oust he so he do not show that John king who make the  lease have any thing for Rohert king be tl ereof then seize and then when John  king let to the defendant and he grant his term by indenture nothing pass but  by estoppel then the lessee by estoppel can assign any thing over and then the  plaintiff be not a assignee to maintain this action but admit that I king have  at the time of the lease make by he a lease for a great numher of year and  that Rohert Kina have the freehold and thereof die seize and so all may he  true which be plead then the entry of Thomas Kinor upon the defendant be not  lawful so croak Elizabeth er p qudcunque v id dald this action can be maintain  and this point for the case of estoppel be adjudge in this court in the case  of armiger v pureas in a writ of error and all the court hold here that it be  clear upon the matter show that the action lie not for the plaintiff ought to  have show a estate by descent in I king at the time of the lease and  assignment make or a estate whereby he may make a lease and that this be  afterward determine and so confess and avoid the estate in the lessor  otherwise this action of covenant lie not and it never lie upon the assignment  of a estate by estoppel wherefore they be of opinion to have then give  judgement against the plaintiff but afterward they will advice until the next  term note this be continue until Trin Elizabeth and then be move again all the  justice resolve that the assignee of a lease by estoppel shall not take  advantage of any covenant but that it shall not he intend a lease by estoppel  but a lawful lease but no sufficient title be show to avoid it it be then as a  entry by a stranger without title which be not any breach wherefore it be  adjudge for the defendant see Henry c