New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-02-02


In these four cs'es Mr.. Van kensselser has msde a
convey spee in Zee reservipg rent.
Whist IL the effect under our statutes ?
In the of lDg.rsOll va. Sugrant II WhAr'ou. S'
il vas held.
l. A rent reserved on a convey ance 10 fee sas
rent service 81 common law, maintained ss snch by
the prvty Of estate growing cut Of the re alton OF "rd
snd tenant, srising from the conveyance sad cup
ported by the possibility of reveIt.r L. the grsnr IN
case % lie failure VI inheIitabe blood the par; d
the grantor.
2 The statute of Quis Enpt by destroying the
privi;y Of esta;e which arose st common law on suco
copyeyauces and removing the possibility Of reverier
in case Of an escbeat char ged all rents arising 10 tie
grantees Oh conveyaUces in fee into rents charge,
since the party 10 whom they ~ers reserved was no
longer the lord of the grantee, but mere stranger
3. The statute Qua EDptores is rot IN force ID
Pennsylvania and there the tudsl Law prevails as IN
Erg gland prior 10 l29O.
Remedy j., page 3jO.) A covenant to pay a rent
charge is merely personal sad collateral 81 the land,
and therefore will not render the assignee liable TO an
action Of covenant for the performance oft.
Page l5ll As further evidence, golog To prove
that bs statute Quia Emptores has lot been consid-
cred force here Pennsylvania, actions OF covenant
have been brought and maintained tor the recovery
Of ground rent reserved in fee and for life when III
arrear by the assignee thereof, in some instances
sganst the grantees of the ots who first covenaned
to pay them, and others against their sssignees.
But If the statute had been in force here, the
ground.Ient reserved in these cases would by means
thereof have been converted Into rent charge
ard then az has been sdy showD the covenant on
the part of the grantor OF the land TO pay the rent
would have been simply personal and c1lat RAJ - the
land upon which no action could have been gus aimed
against the assignee Of toe grantee thereof
TIE Court OF Appeals in SeldeD, 5Oi, held that the
statute Of QUA Dptores reenactei in this 81
Feb. % l7 snd in reference to that satute and the
previous one OF 1913 held the following lSngu ages
" These statutes performed the same functions and
wrought the came chang in the euda tenures OF ibis
State as the statute of QUA Emptores did in Engspd
They put al end 10 all teudal tenure between one
CIT zen ana another, and substituted in us pace
tenure between each sndhodeT and the people 10 Their
sovereign capacity. They converted all rents upou
leases into fee from rent service into rent charge OF
rent stc.'
rent service is strictly f-uda, and i. due from
tenant to bis lord Any rent due from tenant to mis-
iandlo ri is n rent service. rent chang IS rent
granted by upon his lsnd, Il rent reserved
upon giant in fee, which by force Of the statute Qua
Emptores changed into a rent charge. IL was 80
celed because rgto distrain for rent due was cove
nanted for in the grant a rent sc sas like rent
charge except that there covenant Of distress
Il follows therefore, from this chain of reasoning,
that Stephen Van Rensselaer, hsviug made grants IN
fee Ieservipg reLt the statute Qua EmptOres or IN
other words, statute concerning tenures when vas
rtGnaCtment OF the statute QUA Emptores converted
the rents reserved into rent charges, winch We're
MERELY person al and co lateral and cannot be recov
cred IL an action Of covenant aud Tor when eJecteht
cannot be sustained The prvity Of contract between
Van Rensselaer, and his grantees could not be de-
vsed and by virtue OF the saut. there was not from
the execution AID delivery Of the grants any prvity
Of estate.
Van Rensselaer, cold all lis estate, and is to be
garded az vendor who has slieneo bis land and be-
cone, as to its owner his grautee mere stranger.
HIS grantees took the land and helj 1t OF The peope
by tue same services as Van Rensselaer, ma Van
Rensselaer, was the tenant of the people being merely
the POSSESSION Of the fee which belonged 10 aud was
the property Of the people. lie assigned hs tenancy,
and his assignee was substituted in his place as the
tenant Of tie people He could not impose rents or
conditions upon the lard sold and aened, for, If he
could the tenant would not hold the land by the same
services ss heidi and Of the chief lord that IL,
the people In other words the escheat Of the land,
the possibility of reverter, 10 the people, and not
in Van Rensselaer,. There can be no landlord without
a tenant and no rent without a rsverson.
R.vesion s necessary t. create the relation OF land
lord and tenant. See Chambers Landlord aud Tenant,
5s; Platt on Leases, 10; Preston on Conveysncing,
I2i; "a Dow x Clarkes Parliament Reports;
Lord TenterdeIs opinion in the Gaze of Pluck vs..
Dgges, page 49,
TIE counsel then briefly reviewed the opinions Of
the Supreme Court, by virtue OF which Judgment Vas
given in favor of the plaintiffs in all their actions.
He read the opinion Of Justice Wright, in which
Justice Harris concurred.
The opinion starts with the admission that the Van
Rensselaer, deeds are grants in fee, and that Van
Rensselaer, was, by force of the statute OF 1877,
Invested of all HE estate in the land But the opinion
insists that by virtue of the statute 4 Revised Laws.
1868 and of the subsequent statute of 1898 Webster
SINNERS Session Lave, page 2ol, vol ~, there was
granted by the Legislature, 10 Van RENSSELAER,,
statute privity of estate.
Our statute of l779 transferred from the British
Crown 10 the People OF this State the absolute
property of al messUsges, LANDS, tenemenis, and
mere titamepts and of ell rents royalties, escheas,
forfeiture, debts, dues, duties, and services, by
whatever ram.s respectively, the same are called u
known in law and all the right and title 20 the same,
from the 9th of July, me- Il Jones a Naiick,
A, sec. H. 49,. -
Revised Laws, 7O followed.
The effect Of these two statutes has been showo ~
by the language Of the Court OF Appeals Z se'ioh'
500. 49,,
Jhe act Of I7Ss q Jones and Varck, page ISL,
enabled prartees Of reversons IL take advantage of
cen di,ions 10 be performed by lessees
This act was passed because 1t had been h.id oy
opr O. uls that the assignee of reverson could not
mail tan an acton on tins covenant VI tue o'So ~ VIZ
The act is entitled An act to enable grantees OF
revsisicrs TO take advantage Of eondofs 70 DC per-
formed by les.ees
The first section gave grantees OF TeveT-ions the
same ii, TT Of action that the granlors he
The secoud section gave assignees ct !essees lie
same r got of action that the lessees had.
Ooy,ously Therefore, IL cases where the Cr gmaI
eyartor or the original lessee OF grantee, hal no
ia 4 81 action this Get gave none to ossi2aees.
But these xted previous 10 l1s, AMI also provo
To July 9 l776 grants for life, grants for yeas az
grsr's 10 fee resefying rent and q. the s'ature u
100. DcltY iIhIstiIft VI az
applied only to leases foE he, or years. Wa
he'd not TO apply 10 the last that is grants in lee re
s4,yipg rent. TO remedy this omission the statute
Of IS ) wss passed. .s;o,
thereby given sba he Construed TO extend as wei TO
ersI or leases in fee reseryrg ss TO leases iof
"Obysensy. under this act, as well as under that of
l7Ss of which il is an Amendment the assignees OF
srabtors or grantees could tave rights or remedies
which tie giantoIs or grantees had not. They have
the came reediesno more aud 10 lese. The steI1tes
DO OF enlarge or GbriIge the rights remedies OF
raInrs ~ rran,efs but uerrly rxtend 10 their assE