Ground Rent

Rent paid for the privilege of building on another man's land. Johnson; Webster. A rent reserved by the owner of unimproved land upon a lease of the land to be built upon, as contradistinguished from the rent paid to the lessee by his tenant of the premises where the buildings are erected, and from the ordinary rent paid by the tenant to his landlord upon a demise of lands and tenements. A rent reserved to himself and his heirs, by the grantor of land in fee simple, out of the land conveyed. See 9 Watts (Pa.) 262; 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 185; 2 Am. Law Reg. 577.

A rent reserved to himself and his heirs, by the grantor of land in fee-simple, out of the land conveyed. See Kenege v. Elliott, 9 Watts. (Pa.) 262; Bosler V. Kuhn, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 185. In Pennsylvania it is real e.state; Cobb v. Biddle, 14 Pa. 444. See Hirst’s Estate, 147 Pa. 319, 23 Atl. 455. The interest of the owner of the rent Is an estate altogether distinct and of a very different nature from that which the owner of the land has in the land itself. Each is the owner of a fee-simple estate. The one has an estate of inheritance in the rent, and the other has an estate of inheritance in the land out of which the rent issues. The one is an incorporeal inherlfaince in fee, and the other is a corporeal inheritance in fee; Irwin v. Bank, 1 Pa. 349; Taylor V. Taylor, 47 Md. 300. So, the owner of the rent is not liable for any part of the taxes assessed upon the owner of the land out of which the rent Issues; Philadelphia Library Co. V. Ingham, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 72. Being real estate, it is bound by a judgment, and may be mortgaged like otlier real estate. It is a rent-service; Ingersoll v. Sergeant, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 337. A ground-rent, being a rent-service, is, of course, subject to all the Incidents of such a rent. Thus, It is dlstralnable of common right, that is, by the common law; Co. Litt. 142 a; Kenege v. Elliott, 9 Watts (Pa.) 262. So, also, it may be apportioned; Ingersoll v. Sergeant, 1 Whart (Pa.) 337; Myers v. Silljacks, 58 Md. 323. And this sometimes takes place by operation of law, as when the owner of the rent purchases part of the land; in which case the rent is apportioned, and extinguished pro tanto; Littleton 222. And the reason of the extinguishment is that a rent-service is given as a return for the possession of the land. Thus, upon the enjoyment of the lands depends the obligation to pay the rent; and if the owner of the rent purchases part of the land, the tenant, no longer enjoying that portion, is not liable to pay rent for it, and so much of the rent as issued out of that portion is, consequently, extinguished. See 2 Bla. Com. 41; St Mary’s Church V. Miles, 1 Whart (Pa.) 235; Ingersoll V. Sergeant id. 352. At law, the legal ownership of these two estates — that in the rent and that in the in different rights; for the moment they unite In one person in the same right, the rent is merged and extinguished; Phillips T. Bonsall, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 142; Penington t. Coats, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 283. But if the one estate or interest be legal and the. other equitable, there is no merger; Penington v. Coats, 6 Whart (Pa.) 283. In equity, however, this doctrine of merger is subject to very great qualification. A merger is not favored in equity; and the doctrine there is that although in some cases, where the legal estates unite in the same person in the same right a merger will take place against the Intention of the party whose Interests are united (see Helmbold v. Man, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 421, and cases there cited), yet, as a general rule, the intention, actual or presumed, of such party will govern; and where no Intention is expressed, if it appears most for his advantage that a merger should not take place, such will be presumed to have been his intention; and that it is only in cases where it is perfectly Indifferent to the party thhs interested that, in equity, a merger occurs; Dougherty v. Jack, 5 Watts (Pa.) 457, 30 Am. Dec. 335; Helmbold v. Man, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 421; Richards v. Ayres, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 487. A ground-rent being a freehold estate, created by deed and perpetual by the terms of its creation, no mere lapse of tiuie without demand of payment raises, at common law, a presumption that the estate has been released; Trustees of Sfc Mary’s Church v. Miles, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 229. But this is otherwise in Pennsylvania now, by act of April 27, 1855, sec. 7, P. L. 369, whereby a presumption of a release or extinguishment is created where no payment, claim, or demand is made for the rent, nor any declaration or acknowledgment of its, existence made by the owner of the premises subject to the rent, for twenty-one years. This applies to the estate in the rent, and comprehends the future payments. And this act makes no exception in behalf of persons under disability when the title accrues, nor of persons taking as heirs at law or distributees; where a life tenant In groutvd rent released the same absolutely, as against the remainderman the limitation commenced to run from the date on which the first payment thereafter became due and unpaid, rather than at the death of the life tenant; Wallace v. Church, 152 Pa. 258, 25 Atl. 620. It has been held that this act, affecting the remedy merely, is not unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of a contract; Biddle v. Hooven, 120 Pa. 221, 13 Atl. 927; Clay v. Iseminger, 190 Pa. 580, 42 Atl. 1039, affirmed in Wilson v. Iseminger, 185 U. S. 55, 22 Sup. Ct 673, 46 L. Ed. 804. Independently of this act of assembly, arrearaffes of rent which had fallen due twenty years before commencement of suit might be 220. These arrearages are a lien, upon the land out of which the rent issues; but, as a general rule, the lien is discharged by a Judicial sale of the land, and attaches to the fund raised by the sale. See Bautleon v. Smith, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 146, 4 Am. Dec. 430; Sands v. Smith, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 9; Buck v. Fisher, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 516; Catlin v. Robinson, 2 Watts (Pa.) 378; Irwin v. Bank, 1 Pa. 349. ^ Ground rents in Pennsylvania were formerly made irredeemable, usually after the lapse of a certain period after their creation. But now the creation of such is forbidden by act of 22 April, 1850. But this does not prohibit the reservation of ground-rents redeemable only on the death of a person in whom a life Interest in the rents is vested; Skelley’s Appeal, 11 W. N. Cas. (Pa.) 11. The act of April 15, 1869, providing for the extinguishment of irredeemable ground-rents, theretofore created, by legal proceedings instituted by the owner of the land, without the consent of the owner of the ground-rent, was declared unconstitutional; Palairet’s Appeal, 67 Pa. 479, 5 Am. Rep. 450. As ground-rent deeds are usually drawn, the owner of the rent has three remedies for the recovery of the arrearages, viz,, by action (of debt or covenant; but debt is now seldom employed), distress, and (for want of sufficient distress) the right to re-enter and hold the land as of the grantor’s former estate. As used in a 99-year lease renewable forever, it includes not only the rents but includes tbe reversion; Camp v. Boyd, 229 U. S. 530, 33 Sup. Ct. 785, 57 L. Ed. 1317. See 2 Am. L. Reg. 577; 3 id. 65; Cadw. Gr. Rents; Mitch. R. P.

See Ground.

Defined under Rent in Black's Law Dictionary.

Rent paid for the in some states, a fee farm rent.

In Scots law. A ground rent tenement in a burgh is built.

A perpetual rent reserved to himself and his heirs, by the grantor of land in fee-simple, out of the land conveyed. It isin the nature of an emphyteutic rent. Also, in English law, rent paid ona building lease.

Rent paid on a building lease; fee-farm rent.

Rent paid for the privilege of building on another's land. Webster, A rent paid by a lessee who has built on the ground leased; and thus distinguished from the rent paid to him by the tenants of the buildings.* In Pennsylvania, this term is used to denote a fee farm rent. 1 Hilliard's Eeal Prop, 239.