case Furnival versus crew may see Swinburne v Milburn App Cas Lord Hardwicke  on the circumstance of this case be of opinion the plaintiff be entitle to a  new lease with a covenant of renewal to be insert in it as well upon the death  of the additional life as upon the death of the old in the defendant  grandfather Mr John crew be seize in fee make a lease the that of October to  Thomas more in consideration of his surrender of a former lease of the premise  in question whereof there be two life in be and in consideration of one  hundred and thirtysix pound in hand pay by the say Thomas more Mr John crew  demise to Thomas more and his assign a message in Elton with the appurtenance  to hold to the say Thomas more and his assign for the life of he the say  Thomas more Margaret his wife and John his son and the life of the long liver  of they under the yearly rend of fortythree shilling and eightpence and in the  say lease Thomas more covenant for himself his executor administrator and  assign and do agree to and with the say John crew his heir and assign that  Thomas more his executor c at the death of any of the life aforementioned  which shall first happen shall pay to John crew his heir or assign within  twelve month next ensue such death the sum of sixty eight pound in the name of  a fine for to add one other life to the remain two life and so to continue the  renew of this lease or lease pay as aforesaid to the say John crew the sum of  pound for every life so add or renew as aforesaid from time to time accord to  the true intent and meaning of these present and the say John crew for himself  his heir executor administrator and assign do covenant and agree to and with  the say Thomas more his executor and administrator that he the say John crew  his heir executor c shall and will for the consideration of the say sum of  pound as aforesaid to be pay to the say John crew his heir c at Crewehall or  at the place where the say hall now stand seal and execute one or more lease  or lease under the same rend and covenant with these present and therein to  add such life or life of such person or person as shall be then and at such  time nominate to be add by the say Thomas more his executor c within the term  of twelve month next after the death of a such life as aforesaid accord to the  true intent and meaning of these present for every life add or renew from time  to time accord to the true intent and meaning of these present and the say  John crew for himself his heir executor and assign do covenant and agree to  and with the say Thomas more his executor and administrator that the say John  crew his heir executor and assign atkins shall and will for the consideration  of the say sum of pound to be pay to the say John crew his heir c at crewhall  or at the place where the say hall now stand in the name of a fine for add one  life to the remain life aforementioned execute one or more lease or lease  under the same rend and covenant as be express in these present and so to  continue the renew of such lease or lease to Thomas more or his assign pay as  aforesaid to the say John crew his heir or assign the sum of pound for every  life so add or renew as aforesaid from time to time accord to the true intent  and meaning of the say indenture it appear from Reg lib b fol that I crew the  lessor previous to the above lease have in consideration of natural love c  settle the premise in question upon himself for life remainder to his daughter  and for life with a remainder over under which the defendant the son of and  claim there be power of lease to the tenant for life the lessor die and and  renew the lease and enter into the same covenant and word in the same manner  as those above the question now arise between the plaintiff as assignee of  more and the defendant the son of Ann who deny that he be bind by the covenant  of his mother who be only tenant for life as Lord Hardwicke decree for the  plaintiff it be observable that the above settlement not be make for a  valuable consideration be of course void against purchaser and that the lessee  be even as to his covenant for renewal consider as a purchaser for a valuable  consideration the bill be bring by Furnival one of the assign of Thomas more  that his lease may be complete by fill up the life and that the same covenant  of renewal may be again insert upon the drop of any of the additional life the  defendant insist that after the life have be once fill up there ought to be no  new clause of renewal Mr attorney general for the plaintiff cite hide v  skinner p wms and bridge v Hitchcock June bro par can and Edward bro p c S c  Mr solicitor general for the defendant cite the case of doctor Commons v the  dean and chapter of saint Paul before the house of lord in bro par can and  Edward bro p c Lord chancellor the original bill be bring by the plaintiff  against the defendant Mr crew to have the benefit of a covenant in two lease  make by the grandfather of the defendant and to have a specific performance of  the covenant the first lease be make in for three life the second lease in for  three life also in each of these lease the covenant be pen in the same word  the fine be different and the rend be different accord to the particular value  of the estate the fine be no more than pound note this relate to lease of  other land there be one circumstance wherein they differ the lease of the  Sambourne estate be make when the grandfather be seize in fee of the estate  the second lease when the grandfather by a settlement have make himself only a  tenant for life with remainder to daughter c atkins but that do not make any  difference in the equity of the plaintiff because the settlement be admit to  be voluntary and therefore will not prevail against the plaintiff who be a  purchaser for a valuable consideration atkins er p No life drop during the  life of Mr crew the lessor after his death two life drop and a new life be add  by the defendant father and mother joint and another by her single after the  death of her husband on the renewal the same covenant be insert verbatim a  beneficiary and vie who be a new life in one of the lease be dead and the  renewal be ask upon his death in the other the renewal be ask upon the death  of the last of the old beneficiary and vie under the first lease I do not find  that the renewal be much dispute but the principal question be upon what term  the first consideration be what shall be the true construction of these two  covenant and this indeed will determine the whole for the rest will be  consequential upon these the question be whether the obligation on the part of  the plaintiff to tender the fine and the obligation on the landlord to renew  be only upon the death of the first beneficiary and vie or whether the tenant  upon tender a fine will have a right to demand a renewal upon the death of any  of the new add life I be of opinion that the plaintiff be entitle to have the  like covenant insert upon every renewal as well upon the death of the new life  as upon the death of the old it have be insist on the part of the defendant  that this branch of the covenant be confine only to the first of the three  life that shall drop in the lease and to be sure their observation be right  but then come the follow word and so to continue the renew of such lease or  lease to Thomas more or his assign pay as aforesaid what be the meaning of  these word so to continue it have be urge for the defendant that these word  mean only to continue the lease by add a new life on the death of the first  lessee only atkins but I be of opinion the word do not mean bare continue a  new life but continue and fill up the estate from time to time but there be  more force in the word still for it be continue the lease or lease the word or  there must be construe as and for it must be admit on the part of the  defendant that it mean and comprehend new lease vide read v fuel ante vol if  it comprehend some new lease where will you stop why will it not comprehend  the renewal of the lease that will be grant upon the drop of the last survivor  of the old life as well as any of the prior lease I be now on the lessee  covenant the next consideration be on the construction in the covenant on the  part of the lessor that he the say John crew c for the consideration of the  say sum of pound c shall or will execute one or more lease or lease under the  same rend and covenant so that here be a covenant to grant a new lease under  the same rend and covenant which include and take in the covenant for renewal  as well as any other covenant for every life so add as aforesaid c it be  contend on the part of the defendant that it mean only the first life but I be  of opinion that it mean any of the life in the future lease for the word be  general that he will grant it for such life as aforesaid which will comprehend  the whole within this form of expression thus much for the construction of the  word there be two circumstance the pound be to be pay at crewhall or at the  place where the say hall now stand I do not imagine that the lessor think that  crewhall will be pull down before the expiration of three life but still as  Lord hale say in the case of king versus mell vent the meaning be to be spell  out by little hint atkins there be no instance of such a contract as the  defendant counsel will make this tenant contract for for it be most probable  that a man shall contract for either two lease for three life or for  perpetuate the renewal it be not a natural way of contract to have have the  second lease for new life to have determine upon the death of the last life in  the old lease it have be ask whether any breach can be assign at law upon a  action of covenant against the heir at law or executor of the grandfather and  I be of opinion even at law a breach may be assign I agree that the two  covenant one on the part of the lessor and the other of the lessee must be  commensurate with one another and that upon these word to continue the renew c  a action may be support atkins er p and therefore if a breach may be assign at  law either against the lessor or lessee the question be whether this be a  proper case for relief in equity and there be no doubt but it be first from  the nature of the covenant it be a covenant to make a estate in land and if my  construction be right the suit here be most proper because this court can give  the thing itself which be a high and more adequate remedy than damage only  which be all the law give second as to the condition of the person who be call  upon to renew this be a covenant which bind the land in a court of equity and  therefore give the relief against the proper person who be in possession of  the land as it have a lie upon it but against this some objection have be make  on the part of the defendant first that these covenant for perpetual renewal  ought to be discourage for it be take so much of the inheritance from the  owner and indeed it be true but still agreement for a valuable consideration  ought to be perform for the grandfather have the fee and may have sell it if  he please or charge it and therefore shall be support here there be another  objection that the consideration be not adequate atkins but as to that I lie  no great weight for there be nothing excessive as to the advantage or  disadvantage of one side or the other as to the case of bridge versus  Hitchcock and your versus Skinner in the exchequer which go up afterward into  the house of lord there be no fine to be pal id in either of those case and  therefore where the lessor have take care as he have do here that his  successor shall have a consideration pay it make a much more favourable case  for the plaintiff a three objection be the plaintiff demand a renewal with the  like covenant which perhaps it be not in the power of the defendant to comply  with but I be of opinion as to the lease of no objection of this kind can  arise for the grandfather be tenant in fee the right of renewal with the like  covenant arise out of the original covenant and run along with the land but I  do not say that the defendant be to insert the covenant verbatim for in frame  the decree he may be direct to covenant as far as his interest in the estate  will go so as to bind himself and all party claim under he though ugh I do  agree that the defendant be not bind by what his father or mother do yet it  show what their apprehension be that this be a lease to be renew for ever as  to the authority in the case of doctor Commons cite on the part of the  defendant the house of lord there decree a new lease to be make for the term  of year but without a covenant for renew again but this be find upon one of  the restrain statute which be endeavour to be evade by give bind the case of  hind versus Skinner can be apply as a authority in the present case nor can  hardly be a authority in any the decree there look something more like a award  and a compromise than a decree but the case of bridge versus Hitchcock cite on  the part of the plaintiff be much more applicable there a lease be make for  year of a cornmill to be repair by the tenant and there be no covenant on the  part of the lessee to pay a fine but a covenant on the part of the lessor that  he will six month before the expiration of the lease grant another at the  election of lessee without any fine upon the same rend and covenant atkins the  question be whether there must be a covenant for renewal again in the second  lease the court of exchequer be of opinion that under the word the same rend  and covenant the covenant for renewal ought to be insert and on appeal to the  house of lord the decree be affirm it be mention there that pound have be lie  out by the tenant in turn the cornmill into a wiremill and therefore he be  entitle to a building lease suppose the court have decree he another term only  of twentyone year it may appear to be a satisfaction for the sum so expend but  the court of exchequer be of opinion to decree he a lease with the same  covenant of renewal from time to time atkins er p I be of opinion upon the  whole that in the present case the plaintiff be entitle to a new lease with a  covenant of renewal to be insert in it vide cook v booth Cowp somervile v  chapman bro Charles Rep Tritton v foot bro Charles Rep Russell v Darwin ibidem  his lordship dismiss the cross bill Reg lib b fol