Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/120

94 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. the appointment of a receiver, and the application through him of the net income of the land to the payment of the rent, is the proper relief against the land. It seems, however, that, in case of a rent reserved, any deficiency of income in any year must be made good out of the surplus income of any subsequent year ; and, in case of a rent granted, if for a limited period of time, it seems that the owner of the rent is entitled to receive the net income of the land until all arrears of the rent are paid. In one case,^ the plaintiff prayed the court to decree to him the possession and enjoyment of the land until, by receipt of the rents and profits, he should be paid what was due to him, and his coun- sel cited two unreported cases in which he said such relief was given; but this seems to be inadmissible, as going beyond the plaintiff's legal rights; and even if such relief were admissible, the appointment of a receiver would be a much more judicious course. Although a rent-owner is entitled to go into equity only for the purpose of obtaining relief against the land, yet, if he obtain relief against the land, equity will give him relief also against the defend- ant personally, so far as the defendant is by law personally liable for the rent. Great care must, however, be taken not to direct a defendant, in general and unqualified terms, to pay whatever shall be due to the plaintiff, unless the defendant is by law liable for the whole of the rent. If the defendant has absolutely covenanted to pay the rent, of course he is liable on his covenant, and no difficulty will arise. But if his liability is only by reason of his having been the assignee of the term on the creation of which the rent was reserved, or the grantee of the estate out of which the rent was granted, his liability will begin only when the assignment or grant is made to him, and it will continue only so long as the term or estate remains vested in him ; and such a defendant can never be directed by the decree in general and unqualified terms to make payments of rent thereafter to accrue, for even if the estate remain vested in him when the decree is made, it will be liable to be de- vested, and his liability thus terminated, at any moment. On the other hand, he will be liable absolutely for all the rent that has accrued during the time that the estate has been vested in him, and his liability will not be limited to his receipts. In short, the defendant will either be liable absolutely, or he will not be liable 1 Champernoon v, Gubbs, supra.