
    CHESHIRE,
    MAY TERM, 1822.
    ANNA YORK vs. ZEBINA JONES.
    Where A. haying leased lands to B. at an annual rent, and before any rent became due, conveyed the reversion to C., who conveyed the same to É. ; it was held, that the rent passed as incident to the reversion, and became extinct. Üpon a general demurrer, it is no objection to a plea, that it amounts to the general issue.
    This was an action of debt. The first count was as follows: “ For that the plaintiff, on the 16th July, 1817, de-u mised, granted, and to farm let the following tract of land, •l with the dwelling-house and barn thereon, situate and be- “ ing in said Claremont, &c., to hold and occupy for the « term of seven years ; in consideration whereof the said « Jones, by his deed dated as aforesaid, in court to be pro- “ duced, covenanted to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $40 “ annually as rent ; the first payment to be made on the « first day of January, 1819 ; whereby the said Jones, “ on the 1st January, 1819, at said Charlestown, became « indebted to said Anna in the same sum, rent as aforesaid, “ for the year then ending. Yet,” &c.
    
      “ Also, for that the said Anna, on the 16th July, 1817, at “ said Claremont, by his certain indenture between the “ plaintiff on the one part, and the said Jones on the other “ part, in court to be produced, demised and to farm let un« “ to the said Zebina a certain tract of land (as in the first “ count) for the term of seven years, yielding and paying the “ said Anna as rent annually $42; the first payment to be “ made January 1, 1819, by force whereof the said Zebina “ entered into the premises demised as aforesaid, and held “ the same for the term of one year, and at the expiration “ thereof was due to the said Anna from the said Zebina “ $42 for the rent of the demised premises. Yet,” &c.
    The defendant pleaded in bar, that on the day of the date “ of the said Anna's lease aforesaid to the said Jones, K the said Anna was sole seized of the said reversion of the “ said leased premises in fee simple, and being so seized on “ 25tb September, 1818, the said Anna, by her deed of that “ date, conveyed the said reversion in fee simple to one “ Christopher York Alden, who became seized thereof in fee “ simple, and the said rent as incident thereto; and the said “ Alden, being so seized of the said reversion in fee simple, “ afterwards on the same 25th September, 1818, by deed of “ that date, conveyed the said reversion in fee simple to the “ defendant, in virtue whereof the said Jones became seized “ of an estate in fee simple in the said leased premises, “ whereby the said term, created by said lease, became “ merged in said estate of inheritance, and said rent reserv- “ ed became extinct.”
    To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and assigned for cause, “ that it was argumentative.”
    
      Sumner, for the plaintiff.
    
      XJpham, for the defendant.
    (1)Cro. Ja. 227.- 1 Chitt Pl. 477.
   Richardson, C. J.

The proper plea in this case would have been, the general issue of nil debet ;(1) and the only objection to the plea of the defendant in point of form seems to be, that it amounts to the general issue. But the plaintiff cannot avail himself oí this objection upon a general demurrer, as this demurrer must be considered. 1 Chitt, PI. 498. —1 Sound, 161, note 1, and 337,h., note 3. ■

Before any rent became due, the plaintiff’s reversion passed to the defendant, and there is no doubt that the rent passed as incident to the reversion, and became extinguished. 10 Coke 127, dune's case.—Cro. Ja. 309, S. C.— Yelv. 167.

We are therefore of opinion, that the plea is a sufficient answer to the action, and that there must be

Judgment for the defendant.  