Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/114

88 88 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. no court can give an effective remedy for an unsecured debt against a debtor with no assets. If, indeed, the tenant does not pay for the land entirely by an annual rent, but partly by a rent and partly by a fine {i. e., a sum in gross paid at the commence- ment of the lease), — a thing which is very common in England,^ though very uncommon in this country, — a difficulty arises ; for in such a case, if the law permits the tenant to be summarily dis- possessed for non-payment of rent, and disables him from seeking relief in equity, it is unjust to the tenant, as he in truth loses his lease by way of forfeiture ; and, on the other hand, if the law does justice to the tenant, it deprives the landlord of his summary remedy. In this latter case, therefore, equity may be called upon to interfere in the landlord's favor, especially in places where he is not allowed to distrain. The cases in which reservations of rents of the second class will be found desirable are chiefly those in which vacant land in or near cities and large towns is granted for the purpose of being built upon. In such cases, grants of land in consideration of rents reserved will be likely to promote the interests, not only of the parties to the transaction, but of the public as well, and therefore they should receive all the support and encouragement that the law can afford them. The practice of granting land in fee for building purposes, in consideration of a rent reserved, has never, it is believed, prevailed in England to any great extent ;2 nor has it in our States, with the exception of Pennsylvania. In that State, however, as well as in Scotland, this practice has prevailed, and still prevails very exten- sively. It is a significant fact, however, that in Pennsylvania the statute of Quia Emptores has never been in force,^ and that no similar law has ever existed in Scotland.* The practice, however, of leasing land (generally for terms of considerable length and with provisions for renewal) for building purposes has prevailed extensively in England and in New York, and probably also in other parts of this country. Does the law afford adequate remedies for the recovery of rents 1 Compare note 2, pp. 85, 86. 2 Instances of such grants will be found, however, in Mihies v. Branh, 5 M. & S. 411 ; Apsden v. Seddon, i Ex. D. 496; Haywood v. Brunswick Building Society, 8 Q. B. D. 403. 8 Ingersoll v. Sergeant, i Whart. 337. 4 See Clark v. Glasgow Assurance Co., i McQ. 668.