
    M‘Cormick against Connell.
    In Error.
    
      Thursday, September 14.
    Before the fentíharge can enter for of the rent, makeTfdeamount due, whfohHbe-" came due, and on the most notorious part although1«he possession be therehe^noto <r'3'
    A WRIT of error having issued to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county, it appeared, that Connell, the plaintiff below, granted the premises which were the subject of dispute m this ejectment, to one George Lamb, in fee, reserving a perpetual annual rent charge, with power to distrain, and with condition, that if the rent should be hind and unpaid for the space of a certain number of days, and no distress sufficient to satisfy the rent in arrear, could be found on the premises, it should be lawful for the grantor , , . _ _ . , ° to re-enter and hold the same, as oí his first and former estate, and the deed be void and of no effect.
    Evidence was given by the plaintiff that the lot conveyed ivas vacant, and that there never had been any resident tenant thereon, or personal property, of which distress might be made. There was no evidence of the payment of any rent, nor of any demand of rent on the premises, or elsewhere, at any time.
    The Court having charged the jury, that the plaintiff, upon this evidence, was entitled to recover, the counsel for the defendant excepted to their opinion.
    Lyon, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended, that before a landlord could re-enter, for non payment of a rent charge, it was necessary he should make a demand on the premises of the precise sum due, on the day on which it became due. He referred to, Duppa v. Mayo,
      
       and to 1 Bac. Ab. 654, S. (Wils. Ed.) where all the law on the subject is collected; and to Stoever v. Lessee of Whitman,
      
       in which, it is taken for granted by this Court, that the common law of Eng~ land, with respect to re-entry for a forfeiture, prevails in Pennsylvania. In England, he said, the legislature had removed the inconveniences arising from the strict common law rule, by Stat. 4. Gf. 2. c. 28. sect. 2, but that statute had no operation here.
    
      Kennedy, for the defendant in error,
    said, that the lot out of which the rent issued, was vacant, unimproved, and unenclosed. To exact, in such a case, a strict compliance with the forms of the English common law, would be idle and useless; there was no one on whom a demand could be made.
    
      
      
         1 Sound. 287, note 16.
    
    
      
       6 Binn. 416.
    
   Duncan J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

All conditions, on the non-performance of which, vested estates of freehold are to be divested, and the grantor reinstated, are to be construed with the greatest strictness. The law, where it requires any acts, forms, or ceremonies to be performed by the grantor, to take advantage of such conditions broken, and exact the forfeiture, requires an absolute performance. They are considered with the same rigor that conditions precedent to the vesting of an estate are. Where there is a condition of re-entry on non payment of rent, several things are required by the common law, to be previously done, to entitle the reversioner to re-enter. There must be a demand of the precise rent due, on the very day on which it becomes due, on the most notprious place on the land, and a demand must in fact be made on the land, although there should be no person on the land ready to pay it. Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Saund. 287. note 16.

This part of the common law has been adopted by us ; is our own common law. Stoever v. Lessee of Whitman, 6 Binn. 419. It may have its inconveniences ; it may be said that the demand, where there is none on whom the demand can be made, is an idle ceremony. This may be very true. We may not at this day be able to discover the reason of all this exactness, but it is a principle of our legal tenures, and can only be changed by the Legislature. These niceties are obviated in England, by the Stat. 4 G. 2. c. 28. sect. 2. That statute provides, that in case of a vacant possession, fixing a declaration in ejectment in some notorious place on the land, shall stand in the place and stead of a demand and re-entry. This statute does not extend to Pennsylvania. The question then, is to be decided on the principles' of the common law. These principles require a demand of the precise sum due, on the precise day, and on the land itself, whether occupied or the possession be vacant. Until these are changed by the Legislature, and provisions made to remedy this inconvenience, which has been experienced by all who hold ground rents, they must remain rules of property which Courts cannot disregard or overrule.

There was therefore error in the opinion of the Court, instructing the jury that the plaintiff, although he had not demanded any rent, was entitled to recover possession of the lot. The judgment is therefore reversed..

Judgment .reversed.  