Case Facts
In this case, a tenant entered into a covenant for the payment of rent of £20 per annum over a period of four and a half years. The plaintiff brought an action alleging non-payment pursuant to that covenant, claiming the sum of £100. The action was heard in the Court of King's Bench during Michaelmas term of the thirteenth year of the reign of King James I.
Held
The court held that the action was well founded and that the judgement was adjudged good. Crucially, the decision was subsequently affirmed on a writ of error, meaning the original judgement was upheld following a formal procedural challenge. The court confirmed that where a plaintiff brings an action in covenant and the sum claimed exceeds what is properly due, only damages are recoverable under such an action, and any surplus arising from a miscomputation of the amount owed shall be abated accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio of the case rests upon a fundamental distinction between two forms of action available in early English law for the recovery of unpaid rent: the action in covenant and the action in debt.
First, in an action in covenant, the remedy available to the plaintiff is damages only. Where a plaintiff claims more than is properly due under the covenant — whether by error or miscomputation — the excess must be abated. The court does not award the inflated figure simply because it was pleaded; the claimant recovers only such damages as can properly be attributed to the breach of the covenant.
Second, and by contrast, in an action in debt for rent, a different but analogous principle applies: where more is demanded than is actually due, only the debt properly due is recoverable. The court will not permit a plaintiff to recover a sum greater than the true amount of the debt, regardless of what was demanded.
The distinction between these two forms of action is therefore not merely procedural but substantive: covenant sounds in damages, whilst debt sounds in the precise amount owed. This case is accordingly regarded as a foundational authority in the history of English contract law for the proposition that, in covenant, damages alone are the appropriate remedy, and the court retains the power — and the obligation — to abate any surplus claimed in excess of what the law allows.
Obiter Dicta
Not applicable.