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

z
meut in the Court Of Appeals on the Van Rens-
seaer cases. These ca.es were actions of cove
nant and ejectne nt brought, the actions OF cove
nant to recover rent and the actions OF electmen1
to recover the premises in default OF payment oil
rent, reserved upon certain cenyeyances made BY
Stephen Van Rensselaer, subsequently to the year
I7S7. These conyeyances gsve to the original
grantees, their heirs ard assigns, an estate forever
in the lands, reservipg certain yearly rents TO be
paid to The grantor.
The ground taken on behalf Of the tenants was
that, subsequently to the Statute OF Tenures,
enacted Feb. 90, l7o7, the provisions of the In
glish ststute gaia EmptOres were IN force IN the
State of New-YOrk, whereby the owner OF fee
was incapacitated to convey that fee, at the same
time preserving TO himself an interest in the land
by reservation Of rent and right to recover Is IN
an action Of covenant against any subsequent as
.isnee of the land and to enter upon the land fer
non.psyment. Subsequently to that act, the grant
ing an estate in fee severed all feudal connection
between the grsntor and the grantee, who there
BY became the tenant Of the lord paramount, e.,
the People of the State of New York, and chat the
covenants to pay rent inserted in such convey
snce were merely personal TO the fret grantee, and
not binding on his assigns. This effect of the
statute of Isl was admitted BY the Supreme
Court, whose decision of the cases was now
under review, but they held that an act Of
l7s5 "TO enable grantors of reversons to
4" take advantage Of conditions to be performed BY
lessees," and an additional act in 1905, extend
ing this benefit to the case of grants in fee to
which the act of l7s3 had been held not to apply,
had restored TO grantOrs in fee with rents reserved
any rights of action which they had lost by the
statute of tenures.
In the present argumant before the Court OF
Appeals it was objected TO this construction OF the
acts of l7S5 and 1905 that they were passed merely
for the benefit of grantees of reversions, aud,
therefore, did not give nor purport to give any
rights which had not belonged to the original
grsntors, and that Stephen Van Rensselaer, never
having h.d any covenant that ran with the land,
his sssgnees could take no right Of action by
virtue of these statutes. 1t was also argued that
# the Legislature had intended to confer BY these
statutes any such right Of action as the Supreme
Court supposed, lley WouIu nave ooon 'oiu
as conflicting with that provision of the United
States Constitution which prohibits the State
Legislatures from mpairing the obligation of con-
tracts.
II was maintained on the other side, that the
reservation to himself Of rent gave the grantor an
interest in the land sufficient to maintain the ac-
ton of covenant, which runs as well with incorpo-
real heredaments as with land; and that there are
numerous cases in which covenant can be main
tanned where no strict relation of landlord and
tenant exists At all events that the covenants to
pay rent were a part, and the main part, OF the
consideration of the convey ance; that the whole
matter was perfectly understood between the
original parties, that they expressly agreed that
the covenants should bind the assignees, and taat
in equity they were binding and would be enforced
by resort to equity, even though the means of
recovery originally contemplated had failed, and
that, even admitting such to be the fact, it was
nevertheless the duty OF the Court 10 enforce pay
ment.
1t remains to be seen which of these views will
be sustained by the Court of Appeals.