2 so RECOVERY OF RENT-CHARGE. 



not lie for tlic mere detention of the goods ; the goods being in the 

 custody of the law, the distrainor is under no legal obligation actively 

 to re-deliver them ; the owner must take due means to re-possess him- 

 self of them" (iJ.). 



A rent-charge may ie dwidcil />// irill or hy deed operating wider the 

 Statute of Uses, so as to make the tenant liable without attornment to 

 several distresses by the devisees, or cestuis que use, and semble since 

 the statute 4 Anne, c. IC, s. 9, a rent-charge may be so divided by a 

 conveyance of any kind {Iliris v. Watson); and the arrears of a per- 

 petual rent-cliarge were ordered by a decree of Sir. J. Romdiy M.R. in 

 White V. James, to be raised by sale, on the authority of Chqjit v. 

 Jacl'son. 



If the half-yearly payment of a rent-charge on land under the Tithe 

 Commutation Act, 6 & 7 Wilt. IV. c. 71, he in arrear, and no sufficient 

 distress found, the owner of the rent-charge may recover such arrear for 

 a period not exceeding two years by assessment and writ of hahere facias 

 2)ossessionem, under sec. 82, although he may not have attempted to levy 

 the arrear of distress, under sec. 81, at the end of each or any but the last 

 of the half-years, and although at the end of one or more of such previous 

 half-years there may have been a suBBcient distress for the amount then 

 due (In re Camlenvell Rent-charge). Patfeson J. said : " There is no 

 reason to suppose that, although a party might distrain for an arrear of 

 two years, the legislature intended that he should not enforce the remedy 

 under sec. 82, unless he attempted to distrain at the end of a single half- 

 year and no distress were found. The construction of both clauses must 

 be the same. In the case of proceedings on a vacant possession (11 Geo. 

 II. c. 19, s. 16) it never was contended that if the landlord omitted to 

 enforce his remedy at the end of a first year he could not avail himself of 

 it afterwards." It was held by the Court of Exchequer {Parlce B. diss.), 

 substantially on the authority of the above case, that where under the 

 Tithe Commutation Act the halfgearly payment of rent-chciryes on land 

 shall he in arrear and unpaid for 40 days, and there shall bene sufficient 

 distress on the premises liable to the payment thereof, it shall be lawl'ul 

 for any judge of Her lilajesty's courts of record at Westminster to make 

 an order ex parte, without summons or notice, on affidavit of the f\icts, 

 i'or a writ to issue to the sheriff to summon a jury to assess the arrears 

 of rent-charge, and to return such inquisition to one of the superior 

 courts (In re Hammersmith Rent-charye). Lloyd v. Winton is a clear 

 authority that a rent-charge is not within 11 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 22 ; and 

 it was held by the Court of Common Pleas, in Newnham v. Bever, 

 principally on the authority of Lindon v. Collins, that the owner of a 

 rent-charge in lieu of tithes, distraining under the 81st section of the 



