Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/111

85 A BRIEF SURVEY OF EQUITY JURISDICTION. 85 dency is to abolish it in those States in which it now exists."^ At the same time, there has been a tendency in this country not to regard a re-entry by a landlord for non-payment of rent as a for- feiture, but rather as a rightful termination by him of the relation existing between himself and the tenant for the default of the latter; and a justification of this tendency may be found in the fact that the only rents with which people have hitherto been familiar in this country are those which are reserved upon leases for short terms, — which constitute the only recompense made by the tenant to the landlord for the land, — and which consequently generally represent the full value of the use of the land. Hence, it has been the general aim of legislation in this country to convert the landlord's remedy by way of re-entry into a universal remedy for non-payment of rent, ist, by providing very summary and inexpensive proceedings for its enforcement; 2dly, by treating the re-entry and resumption of possession by the landlord, not as a forfeiture, but as a statutory termination of the lease, and there- fore making such resumed possession unimpeachable in equity; 3dly, by giving every landlord a right of re-entry for non-payment of rent, whether any condition of re-entry be inserted in the lease or not.^ It is believed, moreover, that the remedy thus provided 1 Lord Karnes (Historical Law Tracts, 4th ed., pp. 169, 170), writing about the middle of the last century, said : " In the infancy of government, shorter methods are indulged to come at right than afterward when, under a government long settled, the obstinacy and ferocity of men are subdued, and ready obedience is paid to established laws and customs. By the Roman law, a creditor could sell his pledge at short hand. With us, of old, a creditor could even take a pledge at short hand, and, which was worse than either, it was lawful for a man to take revenge at his own hand for injuries done him. None of these things, it is presumed, are permitted at present in any civilized country, England excepted, where the ancient privilege of forcing payment at short hand, competent to the landlord, and to the creditor of a rent charge, is still in force." In Farley v. Craig, 15 N. J. 191, 213, Ford, J. (sitting in a State in which landlords have always been entitled to distrain for non-payment of rent), said : " By distraining, a man carves out justice, without judge or jury, for himself ; and it is well enough to have the option; but no prudent man would use it without a great emergency, — much less have such an odious measure forced on him as his only remedy. It is always harsh ; the blow comes without a word, on the tenant's property, like a bolt from the sky. It is the tiger's process in hunger. Tenants commonly elude it if they can by fraud or guile, and sometimes resist it by direct violence, such as it seems was preconcerted in this case, and in full readiness, if a distress had been attempted." 2 The legislation referred to in the text had its origin in the English statute of ii Geo. II. c. 19, s. 16, which (after reciting that " landlords are often great sufferers by tenants running away in arrear, and not only suffering the demised premises to lie uncultivated without any distress thereon, whereby their landlords or lessors might be satisfied for the rent arrear, but also refusing to deliver up the possession of the