Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/113

87 A BRIEF SURVEY OF EQUITY JURISDICTION-, 8/ to improving it, and thus increasing its value, a perpetual ground rent ought to answer his purpose much better than a mortgage ; for, {a), a mortgagor incurs the constant or oft-recurring liability of being called upon to pay the principal; (^), the negotiation of every new mortgage loan is attended with a considerable expense; ic), so great is now the desire for permanent and secure invest- ments, which will produce a fixed income, that a well secured perpetual ground rent of one thousand dollars {e.g?) ought mate- rially to exceed in value any sum of money that can be borrowed temporarily at an interest of one thousand dollars per annum. TJiirdly^ when a rent is granted, without any grant of the land out of which the rent is to issue, the object of the grantor is to raise money on the security of the land ; and he grants a rent, instead of giving a mortgage, because he thinks he can thus obtain better terms in respect either to the rate of interest or to the mode of payment. The mode of payment in particular, namely, by uni- form annual instalments, may be an attraction to him, especially if the instalments are liable to cease at any moment by the dropping of a life. It is the object of the grantee, however, that is the chief cause of the transaction's taking the shape it does ; for he wishes to convert a sum of money which he has in hand into an annuity, commonly for his own life, and thus to increase his annual income by sinking his principal. In such a transaction, it is obvious that security should be the prime consideration with the grantee ; for, on the one hand, he parts with the price of the annuity imme- diately, while, on the other hand, he has to trust the grantor during the whole period that the annuity is to run; and in many cases the annuity will constitute the grantee's only means of liveli- hood. If, therefore, the annuity takes the shape of a grant of a rent, that is merely for the sake of security; and hence it is a mere accident. The essence of the transaction is an agreement to pay a fixed sum annually, for the period of time agreed upon, in consideration of a sum in gross paid immediately. For non-payment of rents of the first class, the remedies pro- vided by law seem to be all that can be asked for, especially in places where the remedy by distress is given, in addition to the other remedies before enumerated ; and even where that remedy is withheld, a landlord who can summarily dispossess a tenant who fails to pay his rent has not much to complain of. If it be said that this is no remedy for rent already due, it may be answered, 1st, that indirectly it is a very powerful remedy; 2dly, that 12