Andrews hornby against HOULDITCH executrix of Houlditch in covenant for rend  against executrix of lessee who be one of the director of the south sea  company hold that geo c which vest their estate in trustee do not discharge he  from the express covenant SC I term Rep b r covenant for rend due on a  indenture of lease make to Richard Houlditch Esq the defendant testator for  year defendant plead the statute of geo c and that her say testator be one of  the director of the SouthSea company and therein name and be thereby acquit  and discharge of and from the payment of all rend due on the say lease  whereupon the plaintiff demurrer it be first argue last Michaelmas term by  sergeant wright for the plaintiff and by sergeant Eyre for the defendant and  this term it be again argue by sergeant skinner for the plaintiff and by  sergeant Hawkins for the defendant on the part of the plaintiff it be argue  that after a assignment of a lease the lessee be still liable to be sue upon  his own express covenant and though it may be object that the premise be here  transfer by a Act of parliament to which all the party to the lease be privy  yet this statute be to be consider in the nature of a judgement and as the act  of the lessee himself his notorious indirect and fraudulent practice be the  ground thereof as appear by the statute itself now the law construe every  thing accord to the cause thereof and where a thing be cause by a person own  wrong as be the present case it shall not be take advantage of by the  delinquent himself I vent SC keb SC lev the lessor be also a innocent person  and the statute ought not to be construe to the prejudice of such a one    light a if the Act be consider as intend to give satisfaction to the person  wrong it can reasonable be suppose that at the same time it be intend thereby  to do a wrong to other Andrews and if it be consider as a punishment it can  not intend to enable the Andrews er p offender to take advantage of his own  wrong beside there be no word in the statute which discharge the person of the  lessee neither do it work a total disability in he to pay the rend there be  allow to he though if it be yet as the Act be occasion by his own crime he  ought not to take advantage thereof so in the case of attainder a action lie  against the person attaint though he forfeit all his land and good Noy cro  Elizabeth Owen more neither be this Act a good discharge of the offender debt  for it appear by sect that their debt be to be pay by themselves this case  seem therefore similar to that of bankrupt who before there be word insert in  the act relate to they for discharge the person be still liable to the payment  of their debt though they be stripe of all their estate and sergeant wright  cite the case of Houlditch the present testator and hist a march where a like  question come before Lord chancellor Macclesfield and he be of opinion that  this statute be not to be look on as a satisfaction and that the party ought  notwithstanding to pay their debt it be further urge that suppose Richard the  testator be not liable at the time of the Act yet his executrix be liable as  she have asset and if she be not liable she shall have plead plene to manage  on the other side it be argue that by the intent of this Act which be the best  expositor thereof accord to   b the defendant testator be not liable to the  payment of his debt for thereby all the estate both real and personal of the  director be take from they so that it whole disable they from perform their  contract and covenant and therefore if their person shall be still liable they  must of necessity go to prison which be a punishment not intend by the Act as  to the money allow to the director this appear to be for the necessary  subsistence of themselves and their family which can be apply to that purpose  if they be subject to Andrews their contract and it be observable that a power  be give to the trustee to compound for debt owe to the director and to act in  all respect as entire proprietor of their estate there be also a provision  make for all contingent demand and if the director shall be personal liable  the statute will be a ease to they because it direct that if the claim be not  make by such a time they shall be void sect beside this be a general Act and  consequent all the creditor be party and privy thereto now suppose a lessor  turn his lessee out of the premise demise be can bring a action of covenant  against he and that be the case here for by the statute to which the lessor  have consent he bath in effect expel the lessee and choose other person in his  room it be indeed say in I vent that the word of a Act of parliament be the  word of every man but not so as to give up their interest but there be no  reason for this distinction for if a man interest be not bind by statute there  be no need of any save in they which be usual insert but omit here this case  therefore be different from a lessee assignment of his lease for there it be  his own voluntary act but here it be not so and the privity of contract be  whole destroy and it have be determine that if a person covenant to do a  lawful act and a subsequent statute make it unlawful he can be sue on the  covenant I salk dr Pettisworth and the dean and chapter of saint Paul b in the  house of lord there the dean and chapter have contract to make lease which  afterward by Act of parliament they be restrain from do and it be hold that  they be not liable to action upon those contract by reason of the Act in the  present case no prejudice accrue to the lessor by this construction of the  statute for the have the same right to the premise which he have before and  his remedy for the rend be only transfer from his lessee to the trustee  against who he may bring a action of debt or else be may distrain for the rend  it be also material that there be a covenant in the lease from the lessor for  the lessee quiet enjoyment in Andrews consideration of which it be that the  lessee covenant to pay the rend now it be plain that the testator can not  bring a action on that covenant against the lessor and therefore the lessor  ought not to be entitle to a action against the lessee for though mutual  covenant can be plead in bar to one another this be only in case where they be  distinct lev as to the case mention of attaint person there the estate be vest  absolute in the crown but here it be transfer to trustee for the sake of  creditor and there the creditor have no other person to resort to but the  offender whereas here be may proceed by way of action against the trustee or  of distress and in the case of bankrupt to which this be compare there be  seldom any surplus whereas Andrews er p here as the Act mention there be more  than sufficient to pay the creditor and in that case if there be any it belong  to the bankrupt neither be there any clause in the old bankrupt act that the  claim shall be void unless they be make out under the commission and in the  present case there be no need of any word of discharge in the statute because  care be take therein of creditor beside the foundation of sue bankrupt be the  proviso of Elizabeth cap sect which empower creditor not receive full  satisfaction to sue the bankrupt for the residue and last the case of mistress  all against Houlditch the defendant testator be cite where a judgement be  obtain by surprise against defendant for a debt contract in the year and be  bring a writ of error thereon and also a bill in equity against the plaintiff  and the SouthSea company and a order be make by the Lord chancellor that the  trustee name in the Act shall pay the money recover against Houlditch it be  reply among other thing that the debt provide for by the Act be such as shall  be due January at which time nothing be Payable for rend and consequent  nothing can be then claim and a release of all demand do not discharge a  covenant before Andrews it be break   light b beside the creditor be call in  not for their own sake but in order to disencumber the estate and to make the  title clear to purchaser if they shall choose to follow the estate then indeed  they be require to make their claim within such a time but no provision be  make if they shall elect to follow the person and though the creditor be party  to the Act they be not so far party as to give up any interest by it and the  court be unanimous of opinion that this Act can be consider as a discharge or  acquittal of h the original lessee from his express covenant there be no  express word contain therein for this purpose without which it will be very  hard as the statute be occasion by the lessee own act to deprive the lessor of  his election of sue either the assignee or lessee which by law he be clear  entitle to cro James sand the statute amount only they say to a assignment of  the lease and though it be a public one and consequent the lessor must be take  as consent thereto yet beyond this his assent can be extend and the court say  that the case of bankrupt be very similar to the present for if there be no  word of discharge insert in the statute relate to they they will remain still  liable to their debt notwithstanding the commission t judgement for the  plaintiff note upon the former argument of this case Lord Hardwicke who be  then chief justice of this court deliver also his think but without give a  opinion in favour of the plaintiff a p wms b select Cas in Charles Eq ab c bro  p c upon the point in this case with respect to bankrupt see mayor steward  burr Cantrel Graham barn Wadham Marlow cook bankr law Ludford v barber term  Rep b r mill Auriol h Blacst Rep c b term re b r