Sec 688

An acceptance of a contract under seal is inferred from the contract coming into the hands of the party benefited. In order to sue, therefore, on the con- Party exe-cuting deed is bound, tract, it is not necessary for him to notify the grantor of his acceptance, or even to execute the deed.1 Even where a deed contains covenants on both sides, the covenants on one side being in consideration of the covenants on the other side, the party executing the deed may be bound, although the other party has not executed the deed. "The cases establish that a covenantee in an ordinary indenture, who is a party to it, may sue the covenantor who executed it, although he himself never did; for he is a party, although he did not execute, and parties to an indenture may sue though strangers cannot; and it makes no difference that the covenants of the defendant are therein stated to be in consideration of those of the covenantee. Of this there is no doubt, nor that a covenant binds without consideration."2 But when the covenants made by the party first executing the deed are dependent on covenants to be executed by the other party, then the first class of covenants cannot be enforced until the performance of the correlative covenants, or at least until that performance is undertaken by the execution of the deed by the other party.3 Thus, " with respect to leases by indenture, the covenants which depend on the interest in the lease, and are made because the covenantor has that interest - such as those to repair and pay rent during the term - are not obligatory, if the lessor does not execute, not because the lessor is not a party, but because that interest has not been created to which such covenants are annexed, and during which only they operate; the foundation of the covenant failing, the covenant fails also. Unless there be a term, a covenant to repair during it is void. But with respect to collateral covenants not depending on the interest in the land, it is otherwise, and they are obligatory."4 though other party has not executed.

1 Hibblewhite V. M'Morine, 6 M. & W. 200.

2 Infra, sec 695 et seq.

3 Sellin V. Price, L. R. 2 Ex. 189; Wood V. Slack, L. R. 3 Q. B. 379. See for similar ruling on omission of schedule, Weeks V. Maillardet, 14 East, 568, and other cases cited infra, sec 695 et seq.

4 Enthoven V. Hoyle, 13 C. B. 373. See infra, sec 695 et seq.

5 Hibblewhite V. M'Morine, 6 M. & W. 200; Taylor V. R. R., 4 D. & J. 559; Swan V. Land Co., 2 H. & C. 175; see infra, sec 695 et seq.

6 Harrhy V. Wall, 1 B. & Ald. 103. As to schedule, see further infra, sec 696.

7 West V. Steward, 14 M. & W. 47.

8 Leake, 2d ed. 140, citing Sargent ex parte, L. R. 17 Eq. 273; Mavino's case, L. R. 2 Ch. 596; Ortigosa V. Brown, 47 L. J. C. 168.

1 Leake, 2d ed. 140; Petrie V. Bury, 3 B. & C. 353; Rose V. Poulton, 2 B. & Ad. 822; Northampton Gas Co. V. Par-nell, 15 C. B. 630; Macdonald V. Ins. Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 332.

2 Per cur. in Pitman V. Woodbury, 3 Ex. 11, adopted in Leake, 2d ed. 141.

3 Leake, 2d ed. 141.

4 Per cur. in Pitman V. Woodbury, 3 Ex. 11, dissenting from Cooch V. Goodman, 2 Q. B. 580, and adopted in Leake, 2d ed. 141.