
    Theodore Gourdin vs. John N. Davis and Thomas Lehre.
    'The plaintiff agreed to rent to the defendant Kelson’s Ferry, with 200 acres of land for$800 per annum. After a particular description of the land leased, there was a covenant on the part of the lessor to furnish one half of the laborers necessary to erect a bridge across a creek near the landing, and to assist in opening a road for two miles. Upon an action being brought for the rent, the court Held, that the covenant to build the bridge and make the road was not a precedent, covenant; but that the covenants were independent. •
    Charleston district, January Term, 1823.
    Covenant. — Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt.
    
    THIS was an action of covenant, founded on an agreement between T. Gourdin of the one part, and John Ñ. Davis and Thomas Lehre on the other part; whereby the plaintiff agreed to rent to the defendants th.e place called Nelson’s Ferry, with about 200 acres of land. After a particular description of the land intended to be embraced by the lease, there was a covenant on the part of the lessor, Gourdin, to furnish one half of the labourers necessary to erect a bridge across Eutaw creek, and to assist in opening a road for two miles. This covenant concluded as follows: the “ object being that the said road and bridge he at the joint and equal expense of the two contracting parties.”
    The defendants undertook on their part to give and pay for the use of the said ferry and land for the term of-$800 annually, in quarterly payments, one fourth at the expiration of each three months.
    The action was brought to recover for the breach in not paying the rent agreed on.
    The defendant pleaded that the covenant to build the bridge and road, constituted a condition precedent to the agreement to pay rent.
    The plaintiff demurred, and judgment was given for the plaintiff in demurrer.
    The defendants appealed on the ground, and insisted that from the very nature of the contract, the road and bridge were essential to the full enjoyment of the ferry, for which rent was to be paid.
    
      Hunt, for the motion,
   Mr. Justice Gantt

delivered the opinion of the court:

The main object of this agreement, and which is expressed in the beginning of the instrument, is to lease the ferry and .200 acres of land. . The lessees covenant to pay for the enjoyment of the same, $ 800 per year, and it is expressly stated that the $ 800 is to be paid for the ferry and the lands, incorporated in the body of this agreement, is a covenant for erecting a bridge and clearing a road. This covenant does not appear to have any necessary connexion with the lease of the ferry and land, and certainly forms no part of the estimate for which rent is to be paid. Besides, the tenor of the covenant in respect to the road and bridge is, that it shall be at the equal expense of the contracting parties. There is no specification as to the time when the work is to be done. The plain and obvious sense then of the agreement is, that for the ferry and lands, the defendants were to pay annually $800 rent, and that a road and bridge were to be made at the equal expense of the contracting parties'. Why this work was not done ; whether it proceeded from a default on the one side or the other, does not appear, nor is there any averment that the defendants were ready and offered to perform their part of the work, and that the plaintiff had failed on his part to comply with what he had undertaken. The covenants in this agreement are mutual, independent covenants affording to each of the contracting parties a right of action for a breach by the other. The court are unanimous in the opinion, that the covenant pleaded does pot constitute a condition precedept to the payment of the rent agreed on. The motion to reverse the decision made in this case must fail.

Justices Richardson, Huger, Johnson and Noil, concurred.

-, contra.  