present purposes the theory that the equitable jurisdiction in this action can be supported upon the ground that Blodget derived only an equitable title from the Commissioners.

This brings us to the real controversy, which is the effect of the proceedings and decree in the Bickley suit, and the deeds made thereunder by Brent, Trustee, to the purchasers of the "ground-rents."

For present purposes, we may accede to the contention. of appellant that the bill of complaint herein shows, with respect to the parcel that was covered by the Fennell lease, the title to which passed under the supplemental bill and decree in the Bickley suit, that the effect of the proceedings, and the language of the decree, and of the deed made by Davidson, Trustee, thereunder, was such as to pass to the purchaser a legal title to the reversion.

Assuming this, however, it does not follow that the appellees, if they have the equitable as well as the legal title to the Fennell parcel, and if at the same time they have the equitable but not the legal title to the Daugherty and Frethy parcels, may not properly invoke the aid of equity against the ejectment suit. If the appellant had limited his action at law to the Fennell parcel, his contention that if the Willard title to that parcel is good at all, it is as good at law as in equity, and therefore available as a defense in the ejectment suit, would demand consideration.

But appellant brought the action of ejectment for an entire lot made up of three parcels, of which the Fennell plot lies between the other two. The appellees, if driven to invoke the aid of equity against that action because they had an equitable and not a legal title to the Daugherty and Frethy parcels, were fairly entitled to bring the entire controversy into the court of equity, so that it might be adjudicated in a single suit.

A court of equity ought to do justice completely, and not by halves. Decker v. Caskey, 1 N. J. Eq. 427, 433;

Williams v. Winans, 22 N. J. Eq. 573, 577; Knight v. Knight, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 169, pl. 25; S. C., 24 Eng. Rep. 1088, 1089; Story Eq. Pl., §§ 72, 174.

One of the duties of such a court is to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and to this end a court of equity, if obliged to take cognizance of a cause for any purpose, will ordinarily retain it for all purposes, even though this requires it to determine purely legal rights that otherwise would not be within the range of its authority. Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 Wall. 211, 228; Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15; Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354, 395; Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505, 514; Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 338, 349. And since there is no question that the equitable title of appellees to the Fennell lot is good, if their equitable title to the Daugherty and Frethy lots is good, we may proceed at once to the question of the effect of the proceedings and decree in the Bickley suit, and the deeds made thereunder, as bearing upon these two lots.

In strictness of law, the deeds made by Brent, Trustee, purporting to convey the "ground rents" on the Daugherty and Frethy leases cannot be deemed to have included the reversion. The rule at law is, that by a grant of the reversion the rent reserved will pass; but that by a grant of the rent the reversion will not pass. "The incident, accessary, appendant, and regardant, shall in most cases pass by the grant of the principal, without the words cum pertinentiis, but not é converso; for the principal doth not pass by the grant of the incident, &c. Accessorium non ducit, sed sequitur, suum principale." Shepp. Touch. 89. And see Co. Litt. 152a; Broom. Leg. Max. (7th ed.), 491, 493.

The contention of appellant is that the term "ground rents," as employed in the decree of the court in the case of Bickley v. Blodget, has a plain and clear meaning, ascertainable without recourse to outside evidence; and it is insisted that the rents referred to were limited to the

terms of ninety-nine years, because the only rents mentioned in the leases are the annual rents reserved by Blodget in each demise, to be paid during the respective terms of ninety-nine years, and which therefore would cease with the expiration of the term.

The argument elaborates the legal status of the lessor and lessee under the leases. It is said that the import of the contract is plain; that a lease for a specific and definite term of ninety-nine years, and no longer, was created; and that an option was given in connection therewith to the respective lessees and their successors in interest for other and further terms of similar duration, and also an option for the purchase of the demised premises during the terms created or any future term. And it is insisted that the leases extended only until the expiration of their respective terms, and did not, proprio vigore, extend or continue such terms for a definite or indefinite period; that the options made the existence of new leases in the future possible, but not certain; that the creation of future leases depended wholly on the exercise of the privilege of a renewal by each lessee or his successor in interest; and that the privilege not having been exercised in either instance, all rights of the lessees expired at the end of ninety-nine years.

All this may be assumed, as matter of law, without advancing us far towards the solution of the real question presented. If the appellant is entitled to the reversion, the question whether the appellees or their predecessors in title have lost the right of renewal or purchase by failure to exercise the option, and whether equity will relieve them by decreeing a renewal on proper terms, may require consideration.

But the question must first be answered whether, in the sight of equity, the appellant is entitled to the reversion. The appellees, besides showing a title to the leasehold interests of Daugherty and Frethy, respectively claim

to have acquired also the reversion in fee that remained in Blodget; and this they claim under the decree in the Bickley suit, and the deeds made thereunder, in which the interest was denominated "ground rents." Now, while we cannot say that this term is the recognized equivalent of any legal estate in lands, it is clear that as a descriptive term it has, and had at the time of the proceedings under consideration, some recognized meaning that may be resorted to as evidence of the intent of the parties, and from which may be determined what effect ought in equity to be given to the proceedings and decree in the Bickley suit.

In Bosley v. Bosley's Exrs. (1852), 14 How. 390, 396, this court (by Mr. Chief Justice Taney) said, with respect to a somewhat similar lease made by a resident of the City of Baltimore for lands in Baltimore County:

"In the case before us, the interest which the testator had in this land at the time of making his will, was converted into money by his contract with Armstrong. It was a sale and an agreement to convey his whole interest in the land. It is, therefore, unlike the case of a lease for years, or of ninety-nine years, renewable forever, in which the lessor retains the reversion, and does not bind himself to convey it on any terms to the lessee. The form of the contract adopted in this instance, between the testator and Armstrong, is in familiar use in the sale of lots in the city of Baltimore and the adjacent country. It has nearly, if not altogether superseded the old forms of contract, where the vendor conveyed the lands, and took a mortgage to secure the payment of the purchase money—or gave his bond for the conveyance, and retained the legal title in himself until the purchase money was paid. And it has taken the place of these forms of contract, because it is far more convenient, both to the seller and the purchaser. For it enables the vendee to postpone the payment of a large portion of the purchase money

until he finds it entirely convenient to pay it; and, at the same time, it is more advantageous to the vendor, as it gives him a better security for the punctual payment of the interest; and while an extended credit is given to the vendee, it is to the vendor a sale for cash. For if his ground rent is well secured, he can, at any time, sell it in the market for the balance of the purchase money left in the hands of the vendee. It will be observed that the rent reserved is precisely the interest on the amount of the purchase money remaining unpaid."

That leases for ninety-nine years, renewable forever, were common in Maryland, and therefore presumably well understood in Washington at the time of the Bickley foreclosure, appears from Banks v. Haskie (1876), 45 Maryland, 207, 213, 217; Myers v. Silljacks (1882), 58 Maryland, 319, 330; Ogle v. Reynolds (1891), 75 Maryland, 145, 150; Jones v. Rose, 96 Maryland, 483, 484. It is contended that these cases, and especially Banks v. Haskie, show a departure from the principles that anciently obtained in that State, and that the contracts between Blodget and his lessees were made in view of the law as understood in the year 1801. We need not stop to discuss this, because we are dealing with the term "ground rents," not as a term of law, but as a term of description, and we cite the Maryland cases as historical authorities, irrespective of their authority as law.

The contention of the appellant that the term ground rents as used in the proceedings and deeds in question, imported, only the rents that were to accrue during the residue of the 99-year terms of the Daugherty and Frethy leases, respectively, will not bear analysis.

In the first place, it was of the essence of both leases, that the terms were "ninety-nine years, renewable forever." The rent was to be the same for the extended terms as for the initial term of ninety-nine years. It certainly cannot have been within the contemplation of