Fennell v. Guffey
Fennell v. Guffey
Opinion of the Court
The court below was right in entering judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The defendant contends, however, that, as assignee of the lessee,'he is not liable; that the suit should have been brought against his assignor. But the covenant was in the nature of a covenant to pay rent, and runs with the land. It is settled law that covenants to pay rent or royalty run with the land, and that the assignee of the lease is liable for the payment of all rents or royalties which accrued while he held the assignment of the lease: Borland’s App., 66 Pa. 470; Negley v. Morgan, 46 Pa. 281; Bradford Oil Co. v. Blair, 113 Pa. 83; Washington N. Gas Co. v. Johnson, 123 Pa. 576. It is not denied that the respective instalments sued for became due while the defendant held the lease. The liability of the defendant being precisely the same as that of his assignor, the case is ruled by Wills v. Natural Gas Co., 130 Pa. 222. The principle involved is so well discussed in that case that any further consideration of it is unnecessary.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- WILLIAM FENNELL v. J. M. GUFFEY
- Cited By
- 21 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Covenants to pay rent or royalty run with the land; and the assignee of a lease of land for oil and gas production is liable to the lessor for the payment of all rents or royalties which accrue while he holds an assignment of the lease. (a) A lease of oil lands required the lessee to complete a well within six months from its date, and, on a failure so to do, to pay to the lessor “ for such delay, the sum of $231 per annum, within three months after the time for completing such well.” (Z>) No well was completed; and, about eight months from its date, the lease was assigned to a third person, who continued to hold it but never began operations under it. Subsequently, the lessor brought assump-sit for four annual payments of $231 each: 2. In such ease, the first annual payment had not accrued, nor was there a breach of the covenant to pay it, until after the assignment; and, inasmuch as the instalments sued for all accrued while the defendant held the assignment, all were recoverable.*