Crosby v. Loop et al. day, he drew an order in favor of the plaintiffs in these words: BELVIDERE, February 25th, 1850. Messrs. Robinson & Co.:- Gents. You will please pay Henry Loop, John Loop, and George Loop, or order, two hundred dollars yearly from the date of this order, out of moneys accruing due under the lease of the property, known as the Crosby Mills, near Belvidere, made by me to you, to be paid in quarter-yearly payments of fifty dollars, and payable one half in cash and the other in flour, for the term of time that the said lease runs, and fractions of year and quarter to be paid in the same proportion, commencing February 7th, 1850. HENRY CROSBY." This order was presented by the plaintiffs to Robinson & Co., and payment demanded of the two instalments, respectively due on the 7th days of August and November, 1850; but payment was refused, and the defendant had notice. The action was brought to recover $68, a balance due on the instalments before mentioned. On this evidence, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. That decision is assigned for error. The lessor may grant the whole or any part of the premises out of which the rent issues, and the lessee is bound to pay the whole or the proportionate share of the rent to the grantee. The latter has all of the remedies to enforce the payment of the rent which the lessor had. If the lessor makes an unqualified grant of the land, the rent passes to the grantee as incident to the reversion, but he may sever the rent from the reversion by a grant of the land reserving the rent, or by a grant of the rent retaining the reversion. He may grant a part of the land to one person, or the whole to several persons, and thereby create the necessity for an apportionment of the rent between the different owners. On the death of the lessor, the rent has to be apportioned among the heirs on whom the estate is cast. In all cases of apportionment of rent, it is the duty of the tenant to pay each party the proportion of the rent to which he is entitled. This liability of the tenant forms an exception to the rule that an entire contract cannot be apportioned, and that a debtor cannot be compelled to pay a single demand in parcels Crosby v. Loop et al. to several persons. The exception had its origin in reasons of policy and convenience, and has been long and firmly established. It is in the power of the tenant to avoid several suits and distresses, by the prompt payment of the rent as it falls due. 3 Kent's Com. 469; Bacon's Ab., title Rent, letter M.; Crabb's Law of Real Property, § 210, &c. But for the reservation contained in the deed from the defendant to the plaintiffs, it is very clear that two thirds of the rent reserved in the lease to Robinson & Co., would have passed to the plaintiffs as an incident of the reversion, and it would have been the duty of the tenants to make payment accordingly. It would have been a clear case for the apportionment of the rent between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs could have maintained an action against the tenants to recover their share of the rent; or they might have coerced payment by distraining the goods and chattels of the tenants. But the reservation in the deed was a severance of the rent from the reversion. It evinced a certain intention on the part of the defendant, not to dissolve the relation of landlord and tenant, subsisting between him and Robinson & Co. He expressly reserved to himself the whole of the rent, and as a matter of course he continued to be the landlord, and entitled to all the remedies given by law for the collection of the rent. The drawing of the order in connection with the grant of the reversion, did not amount to an assignment of two thirds of the rent to the plaintiffs. The order was the single direction of a creditor to his debtor, to pay a third person a certain sum out of a particular fund. The legal interest to any portion of the fund did not pass to the plaintiffs. If the order had included the whole of the rent reserved by the lease, it might have amounted to an equitable assignment of the fund, to recover which the plaintiffs could have sued in the name of the defendant; and perhaps they would have been compelled to use all reasonable diligence to obtain payment from the tenants, before they could have recourse against the defendant. But the present is a very different case. The whole of the debt was not embraced by the order, and Robinson & Co. were not bound to discharge it in fractions to different persons. The plaintiffs could not have maintained an action against them in The People v. Long. the name of the defendant. The principle that an entire contract cannot be apportioned and performance enforced in fragments, would have presented an insuperable bar to a recovery. Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Chapman v. Shattuck, 3 Gilm. 49. The plaintiffs having demanded payment of Robinson & Co., and notified the defendant of their refusal to pay, had a clear right to recover from him the amount claimed. The judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES LONG, Defendant. ORIGINAL SUIT. The county treasurer, under the law to provide for township organization, is allowed a commission of two per cent. on all sums received and paid into the State treasury, whether the money is paid to him by the town collector, the owner of the property, or the purchaser at a tax-sale. The commission allowed the treasurer is in full of the compensation he is to receive from the State for the performance of his duties. The term, fees, as used in the township law, must be understood as referring only to the costs allowed the collector, for preparing the delinquent list for publication, for selling the lands under the order of the court, and for making conveyances thereof to the purchasers, which are to be paid by the owners of the property or the purchasers at the tax-sale. A collector is reimbursed, by the sale of the lands, for the printer's fees; he has no legal claim for any of these fees, except for the portion charged on lands forfeited to the State. THIS was an original suit, submitted to the court, upon an agreed state of facts between the auditor and the defendant, at June term, 1852. B. C. Cook, for the people. J. N. ARNOLD, for the defendant. TREAT, C. J. This is an original suit brought in this court, in the name of the People of the State of Illinois against James Long. It is submitted to the court on an agreed state of facts, The People v. Long. in substance as follows: The defendant was treasurer of Cook county, and ex officio collector of the taxes thereof, for the year 1850, the township law being in force in that county; the whole amount of the State tax collected by him, including the amount received from town collectors, and on the delinquent real estate, was $44,127.46, on which the auditor has allowed him a commission of two per cent. ($882.25); the auditor has also allowed him the sum of $33.72, the amount of printer's fees on sales of delinquent lands to the State; the defendant, in pursuance of instructions contained in a circular of the auditor, of the 2d of April, 1851, advertised the list of delinquent real estate for judgment at the July term, 1851, of the Cook County Court, but the court refused to enter judgment against the lands, because, in its opinion, the advertisement was not made for the proper term; the defendant then readvertised the list for the September term, and paid printer's fees therefor $108.70; the defendant, in addition to the two per cent. commission allowed him by the auditor, claims a commission of three per cent. on the amount of the taxes on the delinquent lands, ($9,940.62,) making the additional compensation thus claimed, $298.21; he also claims a credit for $133.68, the amount of printer's fees for the first advertisement of the delinquent list; if he is not entitled to either of the credits claimed, a judgment is to be entered against him for $221.84, the balance due the State, as shown by the books of the auditor; if he is entitled to the credits claimed, or either of them, then such judgment is to be entered as the court shall deem proper. First. The act of the 17th of February, 1851, "to provide for township organization," requires the collector of each town to collect all taxes levied on property within its limits, and pay over the State and county tax to the county treasurer, after retaining three per cent. for his compensation. He is also required to return a list of the delinquent real estate to the county treasurer; and it is made the duty of the latter to collect the taxes charged against such real estate, and, for that purpose, he is vested with the same powers that collectors possess in counties which have not adopted the township system. The act further provides, that "the county treasurer shall be allowed two per The People v. Long. cent. on the amount of State tax received and paid over into the State treasury." Thus far, there can be no doubt as to the compensation of the treasurer, for receiving and paying over the State's portion of the revenue. He is allowed a commission of two per cent. on all sums received and paid into the State treasury. He equally receives the tax, whether it is paid to him by the town collector, the owner of the property, or the purchaser at a tax-sale. But it is insisted that the treasurer is entitled to an additional compensation for collecting the taxes on the delinquent real estate, under another provision of the township law, in these words: "Said treasurer shall be entitled to like fees for delinquent real estate, and for travelling to the seat of government, as county collectors are entitled to under the revenue laws." This clause has reference to sect. 108, ch. 89, Rev. St., and to sect. 15 of an amendatory act, passed on the 27th of February, 1847. The former section provided, that "the following fees and compensation shall be hereafter allowed to the following officers and persons herein named, for services rendered under the provisions of this chapter. To each collector, for collecting and paying over taxes, five per cent. on the first thousand dollars, and three per cent. on all additional sums paid over that amount. For each collector's deed, twenty-five cents; and when more than one tract or lot is included therein, five cents for each additional tract or lot, to be paid to the collector by the person receiving such deed." The latter section provides, that "the collector shall be allowed ten cents for each tract of land, and three cents for each town lot sold, and for making the delinquent list for publication, two cents for each tract of land, and one cent for each town lot, to be collected as other costs." The term, fees, as used in the township law, must be understood as referring only to the costs allowed the collector, for preparing the delinquent list for publication, for selling the lands under the order of the court, and for making conveyances thereof to the purchasers; and not as referring to the compensation of the collector for collecting and paying over the taxes. The township law allows the county treasurer a commission on all taxes received by him and paid into the State treasury; and that commission is in full of the compensation he is to receive from the State for the per |