Tit. 12. c. 1. § 4. Chaplin v. Tit. 12. c. 2. Cannot be to the trustees by the deed, yet by the statute, which transferred that power to Mary Cook, she might distrain also. But the covenant, being collateral, could not be transferred. 26. The operation of the statute of uses is the same in the case of rents as in that of lands; for it only transfers the legal estate in the rent to the first cestui que use: therefore a conveyance to A. and his heirs, to the use and intent that B. and his heirs may receive a rent out of the estate, gives B. the legal estate in the rent; and if it is afterwards declared that B. and his heirs are to stand seised of that rent to uses, the intended cestuis que use take only trust or equitable estates. 27. Lady Hanby conveyed divers lands, to the use and intent that certain trustees, in the deed named, should receive and enjoy a rent charge of 30l. a year to them and their heirs, and then the said rent was to be to the use of Porter Chaplin in tail male, remainder over. Porter Chaplin died, leaving issue Sir John Chaplin, who married the plaintiff, and died without issue. One of the questions was, whether Lady Chaplin was dowable of this rent. Lord Talbot was of opinion, that Sir John Chaplin having only a trust estate in this rent, his widow was not dowable of it. 28. The mode in which a seisin of a rent may be acquired, has been already stated. Where a person has been once seised or possessed of a rent, he cannot 5 Rep. 124 a. afterwards be disseised or dispossessed of it; for a rent being merely a contingent right, collateral to, though issuing out of lands, it cannot be devested: and although a person, entitled to a rent, be not in the actual receipt and enjoyment of it, yet by non user only, he does not cease to have a vested estate or interest therein; so that he still continues to be in possession therefore a rent being a mere creature of the law, is always considered to be in the possession 1 Hawk. P.C. of him whom the law adjudges to have a right to such possession. c. 64, § 45. 29. Thus Lord Coke says, a man cannot be dis- 1 Inst. 323 b. seised of a rent service in gross, rent charge, or rent seck, by attornment or payment of the rent to a stranger, but at his election; the rule of law being, nemo redditum alterius, invito domino, percipere aut possidere potest. Thus Lord Ch. B. Gilbert observes, Ten. 104. that if A. is seised of a rent charge, and the tenant of the land pays it to another, this does not devest A. of his right; because the wrongful payment of A.'s tenant cannot alter his right. It it therefore a pay- Lit. § 558, 9. ment in his own wrong, and the rent still remains in arrear to A. 30. It should however be observed, that Littleton § 237. 240. states several cases of disseisin of rent; but these are only disseisins by the election of the party; for when he wrote, an assize was, in most cases, the only remedy for the recovery of a rent, which only lay where the party was disseised. But disseisins of incorporeal hereditaments are only at the election and choice of the party injured, who, for the sake of more easily trying the right, is pleased to suppose himself disseised; for as there can be no actual dispossession, 10 Rep. 97 a. he cannot be compulsively disseised of any incorporeal hereditament. 1 Inst. 251 b. 31. A particular estate in a rent, or any other incor- How forporeal hereditament, cannot be forfeited by a grant of feited. it in fee simple, by deed: as if tenant for life or years of a rent, grants the same by deed in fee; this is no forfeiture of his estate, for nothing passes thereby but that which lawfully may pass. 32. A particular estate in a rent, or in any other Tit. 35. c.12. incorporeal hereditament, may however be forfeited by matter of record, of which an account will be given in a subsequent title. 19. ApportionmentofRent Charge. 39. By the Statute 11 Geo. II. SECTION 1. A Rent Service. RENT service being something given by way of Discharge of retribution to the lessor, for the use and occu- Gilb. Rents, pation of the land demised; the lessor's title to the 145. rent is founded upon the principle, that the land demised is enjoyed by the tenant: but if the tenant be by any means deprived of the land demised, his obligation to pay the rent ceases, as it would be unjust that he should be obliged to make a return for that which he does not enjoy. It follows, that if the 2 Roll. Ab. tenant be evicted from the lands demised to him, he will thereby be discharged from payment of the rent. But in cases of this kind the tenant is liable to the payment of the rent which became due before the eviction; because the obligation continues as long as the consideration. 489. 2. If the tenant be evicted by a title paramount, Gilb. id. before the day appointed for payment of the rent; such eviction will discharge the tenant from payment Idem. Idem, 150. Idem, 152. Lit. § 222. 3. Where the lord purchases the tenancy, the rent will be discharged; for in such case the lord cannot have both the land and the rent. Nor shall the tenant be under any obligation to pay rent, when the land, which was the consideration, is resumed by the lord. This resumption, or purchase of the tenancy by the lord, makes what is called an extinguishment of the rent. 4. If the conveyance of the land to the lord be not absolute, but upon condition; or if it be only of a particular estate, of shorter duration than the estate which the lord has in the rent service; in these cases, though there be an union of the tenancy and the rent in the same hand, yet as that union is only temporary, (for upon the performance of the condition, or determination of the particular estate, the tenant will be restored to the enjoyment of the land,) the obligation of the tenant to pay the rent will revive; therefore, the rent, in such case, is only suspended, not extinguished. 5. Where a person, who has a rent service, purchases part of the land out of which the rent issues, the whole of the rent service is not thereby discharged, but only a part, proportioned to the quantity of land purchased; because, in the case of a rent service, the tenant, being under the obligation of fealty to perform to his lord the services due for the land which he holds of him, this obligation continues while any part of the land is held by the tenant; otherwise the remaining part of the lands would be held of nobody, and freed from all feudal services, which would formerly have been a detriment to the public. And as the tenure between the lord and tenant continued, for so much of the land |