426 LESSEE MUST SEEK LESSOR TO PAY RENT. 



mission of the plaintiff ; the first lialf-year not so ; and the same 

 qnestion might have arisen as in the present case, but it was not made. 

 In Mortimer v. Preedy the Conrt felt the same difficulty as arises here ; 

 but the point was not expressly determined. The case of Buckivorth v. 

 Simpson was also upon a tenancy from year to year ; so was the case of 

 Dolby V. Hcs, which, however, turned upon the defendant being estopped 

 by his own acts of recognition. No case appears yet to have been deter- 

 mined, where an absolute lease in writing, not under seal, for a fixed 

 term of years hanng been granted, and the landlord having assigned 

 his reversion, it has been held that the assignee can maintain an action 

 of assumpsii for use and occupation. We are, however, of opinion for 

 the reasons already given, that he can " (ih.). 



To an actio?! on a covenant in a lease to pay the rent reserved (pmrterly, 

 it is no answer that the defendant was on the dmiised premises on tJis 

 quarter-day, ready to iiny the lessor, but that the latter did not come to 

 receive it {Haldane v. Johnson). And jier Martin B. : "The covenant 

 is a covenant to pay a sum of money to the lessor upon a particular day, 

 no place being mentioned for payment, either expressly or by implica- 

 tion. In such a case it is clearly laid down, in both Rowe v. Young, in 

 the House of Lords, and the judgment of the Judges there, and Poole 

 y. Tumhridge, that it is the duty of the covenantor to seek out on the 

 appointed day the person to he paid, and tender the money ; and in Poole 

 V. Tumhridge, it was stated by Parke B., as the conclusion from the 

 authorities, that ' Nothing can discharge a covenant to pay on a certain 

 day, but actual tender or payment on that day, although if the party 

 afterwards choose to receive the money,' it is a payment to be ' pleaded 

 in the way of accord and satisfaction.' And this is in exact conformity 

 with the rule laid down in Sheppard's ' Touchstone,' p. 378, that where 

 an obligor is to pay a sum of money or do a like thing to the obligee on 

 a day certain, but no place is set down where it shall be done, it 

 must be done to the person of the obligee, wheresoever he may be, if he 

 be infra quatuor maria " (/&.). 



Where A., y.e tenant, covenanted with the landlord, B., to keep certain 

 premises in repair, hut allowed them to hecoms dilapidated, and the cost 

 of repair would amount to £40, and B. had covenanted with C. (the 

 ground-landlord) duly to pay rent, which he had failed to pay, so that 

 B.'s reversion might have been forfeited and of no value, the Court of 

 Exchequer held, in an action by B. against A., that the damages should 

 be what it would cost to put the premises in repair, not what might be 

 the value of B.'s reversionary interest i.'n the premises {Davies v. Under- 

 wood). And ivhere a lease and under-lease each eontained a covenant, 

 to reimir and keep in repair, diflering however in substance and in terms, 



