391/5 Buskin v.  Edmunds, Cro.  Eliz. 636.

391/6 Harper v.  Bird, T. Jones, 102 (30 Car.  II.).

391/7 Bolles v.  Nyseham, Dyer, 254 b; Porter v.  Swetnam, Style, 406; S.C., ib. 431.

391/8 3 Bl.  Comm. 231, 232.

392/1 Yielding v.  Fay, Cro.  Eliz. 569.

392/2 Pakenham’s Case, Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14; Prior of Woburn’s Case, 22 Hen.  VI. 46, pl. 36; Williams’s Case, 5 Co.  Rep. 72 b, 73 a; Slipper v.  Mason, Nelson’s Lutwyche, 43, 45 (top).

392/3 F. N. B. 127; Nowel v.  Smith, Cro.  Eliz. 709; Star v.  Rookesby, 1 Salk. 335, 336; Lawrence v.  Jenkins, L.R. 8 Q.B.274.

392/4 Dyer, 24 a, pl. 149; F. N. B. 180 N.

393/1 F. N. B. 128 D, E; Co.  Lit. 96 b.  It is assumed that, when an obligation is spoken of as falling upon the land, it is understood to be only a figure of speech.  Of course rights and obligations are confined to human beings.

393/2 Keilway, 145 b, 146, pl. 15; Sir Henry Nevil’s Case, Plowd. 377, 381; Chudleigh’s Case, 1 Co.  Rep. 119 b, 122 b.

393/3 F. N. B. 180 N.; Co.  Lit. 385 a; Spencer’s Case, 5 Co.  Rep. 16 a, 17 b; Pakenham’s Case, Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14; Keilway, 145 b, 146, pl. 15; Comyns’s Digest, Covenant (B, 3).

394/1 Holms v.  Seller, 3 Lev. 305; Rowbotham v.  Wilson, 8 H. L. C. 348; Bronson v.  Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 180.  Cf.  Bro.  Covenant, pl. 2.

394/2 Y.B. 21 Ed. III. 2, pl. 5; F. N. B. 180 N.

394/3 The action is case in the Prior of Woburn’s Case, Y.B. 22 Hen.  VI. 46, pl. 36.  In F. N. B. 128 E, n. (a), it is said that a curia claudenda only lay upon a prescriptive right, and that if the duty to fence was by indenture the plaintiff was put to his writ of covenant.  But see below, pp. 396, 400.

394/4 Y.B. 32 & 33 Ed. I. 430.

395/1 Y.B. 20 Ed. I. 360.

395/2 Y.B. 32 & 33 Ed. I. 516.

395/3 “Quia res cum homine [obviously a misprint for onere] transit ad quemcunque.”  Fol. 382, 382 b.

395/4 Lib.  VI. c. 23, Section 17.

395/5 Pakenham’s Case, Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14.

395/6 Sugd.  V. & P. (14th ed.), 587; Rawle, Covenants for Title (4th ed.), p. 314.  Cf.  Vyvyan v.  Arthur, 1 B. & C. 410; Sharp v.  Waterhouse, 7 El. & Bl. 816, 823.

396/1 Co.  Lit. 385 a.

396/2 Cf.  Finchden as to rent in Y. B, 45 Ed. III. 11, 12.

396/3 Cf.  Y.B. 50 Ed. III. 12, 13, pl. 2.

397/1 Covenant, pl. 17.

397/2 There is a colon here in both editions of the Year Books, marking the beginning of a new argument.

397/3 Pakenham’s Case, Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14.

398/1 Bro.  Covenant, pl. 5.  Cf.  Spencer’s Case, 5 Co.  Rep. 16 a, 17 b, 18 a.

398/2 Horne’s Case, Y.B. 2 Hen.  IV. 6, pl. 25.

399/1 “Quod conceditur.”  Cf.  Spencer’s Case, 5 Co.  Rep. 16 a, 18 a.

399/2 It was quite possible that two liabilities should exist side by side.  Bro.  Covenant, pl. 32; Brett v.  Cumberland, Cro.  Jac. 521, 523.