Persons claiming under the covenantor.

(z) Davidson, Prec. Conv., vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 232, 4th. ed.; stat. 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 7 (1 A); David v. Sabin, 1893, 1 Ch. 523, 532; above, p. 1035.

(a) Sug. V. & P. 010.

{b) Above, p. 1034.

(c) Vane v. Barnard, Gilb. Eq. 6, 7; Sug. V. & P. 610.

(d) 2 Dart, V. & P. 881.

(e) Above, p. 1033.

(f) See above, p. 1035.

(g) Hurd v. Fletcher, Doug. 43; Evans v. Vaughan, 4 B. & C. 261, 267; Carpenter v. Parlor, 3 C. B. N. S. 206; Calvert v. Sebright, 15 Beav. 156, 160.

(h) Anon., Godbolt, 333.

(i) Evans v. Vaughan, 4 B. & C. 261.

(k) Hurd v. Fletcher, Doug. 43; Calvert v. Sebright, 15 Beav. 156.

(l) Carpenter v. Parker, 3 C. B. N. S. 206.

(m) Stanley v Hayes, 3 Q. B. 105; Sug. V. & P. 603; 2 Dart, V. & P. 884.

(n) Stock v. Meakin, 1900, 1 Ch. 683, 694; above, p. 455.

Although the usual qualified covenant for quiet enjoyment will he broken by any disturbance, lawful or unlawful, on the part of some person whose acts are particularly covenanted against (o), a disturbance by any one claiming under such person will not cause any breach unless it be done under a claim of right derived from such person. The covenantor is not answerable for the purely wrongful acts of those claiming under the persons against whose acts, etc. he has promised to indemnify the covenantee (p).

Disturbance by one claiming under a person, whose acts are covenanted against.

In order to establish a breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment, or for quiet enjoyment free from incumbrances, it is necessary to prove that the plaintiff has been actually disturbed in his possession or enjoyment of the premises, as by his ejectment therefrom, or by entry thereon or user thereof contrary to his right (q), or by blocking up a private way which gives access thereto (r), or by notice to his tenants to pay rent to an adverse claimant (s). And the disturbance complained of must have been either the direct act of some person comprehended in the covenant or else a consequence, which he foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen, of some act of his (t). If an adverse claimant take proceedings against the purchaser at law or in equity to establish his right, that appears to be a disturbance of the purchaser's quiet enjoyment {u). But where, after completion of a sale of land, a decree was made by the Court of Chancery establishing a right of common thereover, and the purchaser was no party to the suit, though he was one of a class of persons who were represented therein, it was considered that this alone was no breach of the vendor's covenant for quiet enjoyment: but it was admitted that the decision would have been different if the decree had been made against the purchaser personally ( x). A simple assertion of an adverse claim, though reiterated to an extent which may cause mental annoyance, and mere threats of legal proceedings, however disturbing to the threatened party's peace of mind, do not appear to be any breach of a covenant for his quiet enjoyment of some land assured to him (y).

What is a breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment.

(o) Above, p. 1031.

(p) Sanderson v. Mat/or of Ber-wick-on-Tweed, 13 Q. B. D. 547; Harrison v. Muncaster, 1891, 2 Q. B. 680, 683, 685.

(q) Shepp.Touch. 170; Howard v. Maitland, 11 Q. B. D. 695; and see Carpenter v. Parker, 3 C. B. N. S. 206.

(r) Andreas v. Paradise, 8 Mod, 318; Morris v. Edgington, 3 Taunt, 24.

(s) Edge v. Boileau, 16 Q. B. D. 117. '

(t) Harrison v. Muncaster, 1891, 2 Q. B. 680.

(u) See Hunt v. Danvers, T. Raym. 370; Howard v. Maitland, 11 Q. B. D. 695, 700; David v. Sabin, above, p. 1034.

It is a question, upon which conflicting opinions have been judicially expressed, whether a covenant for quiet enjoyment can be broken by any act which does not affect the title to the land or directly infringe upon the covenantee's possession (z). But it is established that a covenant for quiet enjoyment does not enlarge the grant in any way; so that if one sell and convey land, giving the usual covenants for title, and afterwards acquire some adjoining land, he is not liable to be restricted in his lawful user of the after-acquired land by the fact that such user may cause inconvenience to his grantee (a). Thus he may well build thereon so as to obstruct the access of light to his grantee's windows, if the grantee had not previously acquired any easement of light (b). So, also, he may build thereon a tall chimney or a high wall, notwithstanding that the effect of this is to cause his grantee's chimneys to smoke (c). And in neither case will he commit any breach of his covenant for quiet enjoyment (c). And the better opinion appears to be that, even where the vendor is possessed, at the time of conveyance, of land adjoining the land sold, no breach of his covenant for quiet enjoy-ment is committed by any act done on the adjoining-land, which does not affect the title to the land sold or any easement conveyed therewith {d), or directly infringe upon the purchaser's possession (e), or derogate from the grant (f), but only inflicts by indirect means some inconvenience to the purchaser, not amounting to an independent cause of action (g). It is true that in one case, where a man possessed of a house and an adjoining plot of land leased the house, with the usual covenant for quiet enjoyment, and afterwards erected on the adjoining land buildings of such a height as to cause the chimneys of the house to smoke, it was held that he had committed a breach of his covenant for quiet enjoyment (h). But the correctness of this decision has been questioned in the Court of Appeal (i).

Whether acts not affecting the title or possession can be a breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment.

(x) Howard v. Maitland, ubi sup.

{y) See Witchcot v. Nine, 1 Brownlow & Goldsborough, 81; Carpenter v. Parker, 3 C. B. N. S. 206; Howard v. Maitland, 11 Q. B. D. 695, 703; Edye v. Boileau, 16 Q. B. D. 117, 120.