Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/112

86 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. is now more resorted to than all other remedies put together, especially in those States where a right to distrain for non- payment of rent does not exist. Such being the remedies furnished by courts of law for the non- payment of rent, the question arises whether they are available and adequate in all cases that can happen. In answering this question, it will be convenient to distinguish rents into three classes, with reference to the different purposes for which they may be created. Firsts when an ordinary lease is made, reserving a rent, the object of the lessor is simply to obtain an income from property which he does not wish himself to occupy, i. e., from property which he holds as an investment, while the object of the lessee is to obtain the possession and enjoyment of property which he is unable to own, or which he does not wish to own. Secondly, when land, instead of being sold for a sum in gross, is granted in fee, or for a long term of years, with a reservation of an annual rent, such rent constituting the price to be paid for the land, the object of the grantor is to convert his land into another kind of investment, — an investment which will be as permanent as land and much more secure, which will produce a fixed amount of income, and which will cost its owner the least possible care, anxiety, and trouble. An owner of land, moreover, may not be able to sell it for a sum in gross, except at a great sacrifice, and therefore, unless he submit to such sacrifice, he may have to choose between holding the land indefinitely and disposing of it in the manner just indicated, i.e., between making the land pro- duce a regular income, and suffering it to cause a regular outgo. The object of the grantee, on the other hand, is to obtain the land on credit, either because he is unable to pay for it at once, or be- cause he thinks he can put his money to a better use than that of paying for. the land. Moreover, if he obtains the land with a view demised premises, whereby the landlords are put to the expense and delay of recovery in ejectment") provides that two or more justices of the peace may put landlords in possession of leased land in a summary manner, {a) where the rent is a rack-rent, or a rent of full three fourths of the yearly value of the premises; {b) where a year's rent is in arrear ; [c) where the tenant has deserted the premises, and left the same uncul- tivated or unoccupied, so as no sufficient distress can be had to countervail the arrears of rent ; and [d) where by the terms of the lease the landlord is entitled to re-enter for non-payment of rent (Pilton, Ex f arte, i B. & Aid. 369) ; and that, upon the landlord's being so put in possession, the lease shall become void. By 57 Geo. Ill c. 52, the foregoing statute was extended to cases where only one half a year's rent was in arrear, and where the landlord had no right to re-enter.