Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/37

This page needs to be proofread.


LUMLEY V. GYE. 19

or covenantor.^ The absolute owner of land was conceived of as having in himself two distinct things, the seisin and the use. As he might make livery of seisin and retain the use, so he was per- mitted, at last, to grant away ^he use and keep the seisin. The grant of the use was .furthermore assimilated to the grant of a chattel or money. A quid pro quo, or a deed, being essential to the transfer of a chattel or the grant of a debt,^ it was required also in the grant of a use. Equity might conceivably have en- forced uses wherever the grant was by deed. But the chancellors declined to carry the innovation so far as this. They enforced only those gratuitous covenants which tended to ** the establish- ment of the house " of the covenantor ; in other words, covenants made in consideration of blood or marriage.^

Cambridge.

X B, Ames.

[To be continued."]

THE PRINCIPLE OF LUMLEY v. GYE, AND ITS APPLICATION.

THE facts in the case of Lumley v, Gye* may be stated in a few words. The plaintiff, the lessee of a theatre, had made a contract with Johanna Wagner to perform in his theatre for a certain time, with a condition in the contract that she should not sing nor use her talents elsewhere during the term, without the plaintiff's consent in writing. The defendant, whilst the agree- ment with Wagner was in force, and with full knowledge of its existence, and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff, per- suaded her to break her contract and refuse to perform in the plaintiff's theatre, and to depart from the employment. Mr. Jus- tice Coleridge, in his dissenting opinion in the case, which has

1 Plow. 298, 308 ; Buckley v. Simonds, Winch, 35-37, 59, 61 ; Hore v, Dix, i Sid. ^Sf 27'y Pybus V. Mitford, 2 Lev. 75, 77.

2 That a debt was, as suggested by Professor Langdell (Contracts, § 100), regarded as a grant, finds strong confirmation in the fact that Debt was the exclusive remedy upon a covenant to pay money down to a late period. Chawner v. Bowes, Godb. 2 1 7. See, also, I Roll. Ab. 518, pi. 2 and 3; Brown v. Hancock, Hetl. no, \\\^ per Barkley.

8 Bacon, St. of Uses (Rowe*s ed.), 13-14.

  • 2 EL & BL 216.