50 TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN.—2 BLAND.

ered, its payment may certainly be enforced in equity. Attorney-
General v. Downing, 1 Dick. 417; Nannock v. Norton, 7 Ves. 402;
Sibley v. Perry, 7 Fes. 534. These plain tills could not proceed for
the recovery of this annual sum, at common law, as for a rent
charge; because no right of distress is given by the grantor, and it
is not distrainable of common right: nor could they enter upon and
hold the land charged until they were satisfied; because the testa-
tor has given them no such authority. A writ of annuity, being a
remedy at law against the person of the grantor of the annuity, it
follows that a devisee could not avail himself of it, as the devisor
ceased to exist before the gift of the annuity took effect. William
Clun's Case, 10 Co. 128; Co. Lilt. 144; Brediman's Cane, 6 Co. 59.
The annual sum thus devised to the plaintiff, Anna Maria, being
made payable out of the land, might, however, be regarded as a
rent seek; and as such, having been made distrainable by statute,
it might be held that the plaintiff should in that way obtain relief
at law. Co. Litt. 143; Brediman's Case, 6 Co. 59; Saward v. Ans-
tey, 9 Com. Laic Rep. 506; Rebecca Owing s' Case, 1 Bland, 296. Or
these plaintiffs might, with better apparent hope of success, bring
a special action upon the case, the most flexible and comprehen-
sive form of action known to the common law; yet the embarrass-
ments and inconveniences of applying even that form of proceed-
ing to the purposes of obtaining relief, in a case like this, are ob-
vious, and would be very great. Before the statute which gave
the power to distrain for rent seek, the payment of such rents
might be enforced inequity; and even since, relief has been gran ted
in cases of rent charge, with an admitted power of distress and
re entry. The remedy in equity is manifestly more convenient and
effectual, * safer and better. It may be found to be least
54 injurious to the interest of these infants, and without disad-
vantage to any one else, to have the land sold for the payment of
this annuity; or it may be deemed necessary to have it raised out
of the rents and profits by putting a receiver upon the estate,
which could not be done by a Court of common law, Thorndike v.
Allington, 1 Chan. Ca. 79; Davy v. Davy, 1 Chan. Ca. 147; Ken-
noule v. Bedford, 1 Chan. Ca. 295; Bath- mid Montague's Case, 3
Chan. Ca. 91; Sherman v. Collins, 3 Atk. 819; Nicholls v. Leeson,
3 Aik. 574; Leeds v. Radnor, 2 Bro. C. C. 339 and 519; Cupit v.
Jackson, 6 Exch. Rep. 245, or there may be a personal decree
against them, or their guardian, in respect to the amount of the

execution from this Court for the payment of the said sum, with interest as
aforesaid from the 22d day of March, 1787. And also for the payment of
the legal costs expended by the complainant in the prosecution of this suit,
amounting, as taxed by the register, to the quantity of 5,201 pounds of
tobacco. And it is further Decreed, that the defendants John Chaires and
Mark Benton be hence dismissed.