profession have always wondered at Dumpor's Case, but it has been law so many centuries that we cannot now reverse it." And Lord ELDON: And Lord ELDON: "Though Dumpor's Case has always struck me as extraordinary, it is the law of the land." At length parliament acted and the rule established by the case ceased to be the law.

In Woodland Oil Co. vs. Crawford, 55 Ohio, 161 (1896); S. C., 34 L. R. A., 62, lessee assigned the lease, and, in such assignment, stipulated that the assignee should have and hold the lease under the terms thereof, and under and subject to the rents and covenants therein reserved and contained. Held, that thereby the assignee stepped into the shoes of the lessee and assumed his obligations and became liable for the rentals due under the lease.

To the same effect. Breckenridge vs. Parrott, 15 Ind. App., 411 (1896); S. C., 44 N. E., 66.

Sec. 151.

See, also, Fennell vs. Guffey, 139 Pa., 341 (1891); Watson Coal Co. vs. Castel, 73 Ind., 296; McDowell vs. Hendrix, Exr., 67 Ind., 513; Gordon vs. George, 12 Ind., 488; Stewart vs. Ry. Co., 102 N. Y., 607.

Sec. 152.

In McBee vs. Sampson, 66 Fed. Rep., 416 (1895), the leading authorities upon the subject are reviewed ; among others, Childs vs. Clark, 49 Am. Dec., 164; Johnson vs. Sherman, 76 Am. Dec., 481, and Onslow

vs. Corrie, 2 Madd., 340, all supporting the doctrine. that the assignee is responsible for the rent only so long as he remains in possession of the property. Says the court, after citing the authorities in point:

"A lessee remains liable on his express obligation, notwithstanding he may have assigned his lease. Wall vs. Hinds, 4 Gray, 256; Smith vs. Harrison, 42 Ohio St., 180. And the lessor may sue at his election either the lessee or the assignee, or may pursue this remedy against both at the same time, though, of course, with but one satisfaction. In such cases, the liability of the original lessee depends upon privity of contract and continues during the whole term, while the liability of the assignee depends upon privity of estate, created by the assignment and continues only during the time he holds legal title to the leasehold estate during the assignment. Tayl. L. & T., Sec. 452; 1 Nashv. R. P., 326; Thursby vs. Plant, 1 Saund., 241, b, note 6." Eaton vs. Jaques, 2 Doug., 463.

The court (SIMONTON, Cir. J.,) then remarks:

"Equity, however, gives relief to a landlord for his rent in cases of assignment: First, where the assignment is merely colorable and fictitious, the possession remaining with the assignor; or, secondly, though there be a real assignment, yet it has been made for the purpose of depriving the landlord of his legal remedies for rent due or breaches of covenant incurred previous to the assignment."

This, however, is only obiter, as the court did not grant any such relief in the case.

Sec. 153. Drilling Oil Well Through Coal Vein-Continuing Liability of Assignors.

Defendants, the owners of an oil and gas lease, drove a well through a vein of coal owned by a coal company, which filed a bill in equity to restrain them from further operations. Subsequently defendants and the coal company settled their differences in a

writing, by which the coal company agreed to no longer obstruct the drilling of oil and gas wells, and defendants agreed to pay $500 for the first well and $500 for each additional well to be drilled thereafter. Defendants subsequently assigned their lease and other wells were drilled by their successors in title. Held, that defendants were liable in the sum of $500 for each well drilled after their assignment. And the fact that plaintiff failed to demand from the assignee the sum stipulated for each well, when begun, did not work a forfeiture of its rights under the contract, since the time of payment, being for its benefit, might be waived. Coal Co. vs. Greenlee, 164 Pa., 549 (1894).

Per STERRETT, C. J.:

"The assignment upon which defendants rely is purely ex parte and is a new way of paying old debts' which no court of justice can recognize." See Sanders vs. Sharp, 153 Pa., 562 (1893); post, Chapter VIII, "Obligation of Lessee."

Sec. 154. Forfeiture-Assignee Put upon Inquiry.

Where a lease provides for forfeiture in certain cases, the assignee is bound at his peril to ascertain whether or not it has been forfeited. Nat. Gas Co. vs. Phil'a. Co., 158 Pa., 317 (1893).

Sec. 155. Sale under Execution Equivalent to Assign

ment.

Where a term of years is sold by a sheriff under execution, the sale operates and takes effect as an assignment at law, and a purchaser at such sale takes the estate liable to such covenants of the lessee as may have attached to the property demised, and, as

he assumes these liabilities of the lessee, he also takes all the interests of the assignor, whether in possession or expectancy. Simons vs. Van Ingen, 86 Pa., 330 (1878).

Sec. 156. Purchaser of Oil Lease at Sheriff's Sale must Inquire as to Unfulfilled Covenants.

A purchaser of an oil lease at a sheriff's sale acquires no greater interest or estate than that actually held by the lessee, and he takes subject to all the covenants and conditions contained in the lease. He is, therefore, bound to inquire, and, failing to do so, is fixed with notice of all that inquiry would have disclosed. Aderhold vs. Oil Well Sup. Co., 158 Pa., 401 (1893).

Sec. 157. Liable Also for Taxes on Improvements.

A purchaser at a sheriff's sale of the unexpired term of a coal-mining lease takes the lessee's place under the lease, standing upon no higher plane in any respect, and like the tenant, is liable for all taxes on improvements placed by himself on the land. Re Huddell, U. S. D. C., E. D. Pa., 16 Fed. R., 373 (1883).

Sec. 158. Liability of Purchaser of Leasehold, with Beneficial Ownership, when Assignment made to Third Party.

A leasehold of slate quarries was exposed to public sale, with other property, and purchased by defendant. Afterwards, a deed for the property thus purchased was, at his request, made to a third party, who subsequently conveyed to defendant all the property except the lease. The plaintiffs, claiming that

defendant was in fact the assignee and beneficial owner of the term, brought suit to recover rent which accrued since the date of the public sale. Held, that defendant was liable.

Per STERRETT, J.:

"There is no merit in the position that the lease was not assigned to the defendant. If it was included in his purchase, and at his request, the deed was made to Felton, not for the purpose of investing the title absolutely to him, but to be held in trust to defendant, the beneficial ownership was in the latter. This was a question of fact for the jury." Morgan vs. Yard, Sup. Ct. Pa., 13 Pitts. L. J., 178 (1882); S. C., 12 W. N. C., 449.

Sec. 159.

Parol Agreement for Forfeiture Yields to an Assignment for Valuable Consideration without Notice.

Though a parol agreement for a forfeiture of a prior lease for failure to commence the well, or pay a rental, be entered into, yet an assignee of the lease, for valuable consideration, and without notice of the agreement, would obtain and could convey a good title, even to a vendee who had actual notice. Thompson vs. Christie, 138 Pa., 230 (1890).

Sec. 160.

An assignee of the undivided interest of one partner in the usual oil and gas lease takes subject to partnership debts. Chamberlin vs. Dow, Sup. Ct. Pa., 16 W. N. C., 532 (1884).

Sec. 161. Payment of Rental to Co-tenants JointlyAssignment by One.

Where there is a joint lease by two tenants in common for an entire rental, and neither has given