628 ARTICLE 21.

notice of six months to the landlord, for a sum of money equal to the capi-
talization of the rent reserved at a rate not to exceed six per- centum.

Application of this section.

The act of 1888, ch. 395, did not render the act of 1884, ch. 485, inoperative,
but was a substantial re-enactment of the latter; hence the lessee under a lease
made in 1886 is entitled to redeem in 1902. The fact that the property was improved
at the time of the lease is immaterial. Purpose of the two acts above mentioned.
Swan v. Kemp, 97 Md. 688. And see Steward v. Gorier, 70 Md. 245; Buckler v. Safe
Deposit Co., 115 Md. 222; Brager v. Bigham, 127 Md. 156; Cochran. v. State, 119
Md. 547.

A lease executed subsequent to the act of 1888, ch. 395, purporting to be in
pursuance of a covenant in a lease executed prior thereto, but which is inconsistent
with such prior lease, is redeemable under this section. Maulsby v. Page, 105 Md.
29. Cf. Flook v. Hunting, 76 Md. 180.

This section has no application to a lease executed after the passage of the act of
1888, ch. 395, confirming a defective lease executed prior thereto. Jones v. Linden
Bldg. Assn., 79 Md. 74.

The leases contemplated by this section contrasted with those referred to in
art. 23, sec. 219. A lease held to be in accordance with the latter section, and hence
that it was not redeemable under this and the following section. Buckler v. Safe
Deposit Co., 115 Md. 222.

A lease for fourteen years with a covenant to renew for a like period, the second
lease to contain the same covenants, comes within the purview of this section. No
covenant can estop the tenant from his right of redemption. Stewart v. Gorter, 70
Md. 243.

This section held to have no application to a lease made prior to its adoption,
although the lessor's title was perfected by the ratification of a sale in equity and
a deed from the trustee after this section went into effect. This section being
remedial, should be liberally interpreted against irredeemable leases for long terms.
Poultney v. Emerson, 117 Md. 656.

This section as it stood in 1884, held not applicable to the lease of a lot by a
camp-meeting association at indefinite and variable rentals. The contention that
the act of 1884 could not operate as to a lease made by a corporation because it
would then impair the obligation of such corporation's charter (act of 1874), over-
ruled. Purpose, scope and construction of this section. Walker v. Washington Grove
Assn., 127 Md. 565. And see Washington Grove Assn. v. Walker, 128 Md. 98.

Generally.

A bill in equity stating that the leaseholder is in doubt as to to whom the notice of
intention to redeem should be given, by reason of doubt as to the construction of a
will, and asking the court to advise the plaintiff, etc., will be dismissed. Where the
required notice has been given, however, a bill in the nature of one for specific
performance will lie. Effect of the act of 1888, ch. 395. Plaenker v. Smith, 95 Md.
394.

This section referred to in upholding the validity of the portion of art 16, sec. 266,
relative to the costs of proceedings to redeem ground rents. Kingan Packing Assn.
v. Lloyd, 110 Md. 628.

Cited but not construed in Erb v. Grimes, 94 Md. 106.

The case of Stewart v. Gorter, 70 Md. 242, distinguished; see notes to art. 21,
sec. 1. King v. Kaiser, 126 Md. 221.

This and the following section are substantially the same as art. 53, sec. 25—see
notes to the latter section.

As to the redemption of ground rents vested in a trustee, etc., without a power of
sale, see art. 16, sec. 266. As to the redemption of ground rents owned by infants,
see art. 93, sec. 177.

See sec. 99 and notes to sec. 95.

An. Code, sec. 93. 1904, sec. 89. 1900, ch. 207, sec. 85A.

95. All rents reserved by leases or sub-leases of land hereafter made
in this State for a longer period than fifteen years shall be redeemable
at any time after expiration of five years from date of such leases or sub-
leases, at the option of the tenant, after a notice of one month to the land-