Coker v. Britt
| Decision Date | 13 May 1901 |
| Citation | 78 Miss. 583,29 So. 833 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | T. M. COKER, ADMINISTRATOR, v. F. S. BRITT |
FROM the circuit court of Union county. HON. Z. M. STEPHENS Judge.
The appellant, Coker, administrator, was plaintiff, and the appellee, Britt, defendant in the court below. The opinion states the case.
Judgment reversed.
W. G Bias, for the appellant.
Kennedy & Crum, for the appellee.
F. S Britt rented of Mrs. Smith, through her agent, Sanders, a farm in Union county, and gave his rent note for $ 50, dated March 23, 1898, and due on the fifteenth day of October, 1898. Britt agreed, with J. A. Smallwood, a merchant in the vicinity of the farm, that, if Smallwood would take up his rent note and furnish him with supplies for the year, that he should be considered as his landlord for the year in reference both to the rent note and the supplies which he should furnish him, and this agreement and arrangement was intended to avoid the necessity of giving a mortgage to secure the supplies for the year. In accordance with this agreement and understanding, Smallwood made such advance of supplies to Britt as he required, paid to Sanders $ 50 on the rent note and took a transfer of it to himself. After paying a part of the rent note and a part of the amount due for supplies, and leaving a portion of each sum unpaid, Coker, the administrator of Smallwood, who had died, sued out an attachment for the balance due on the rent note and for supplies, amounting to $ 95.66. Britt replevied the property seized, and Coker had judgment before the justice of the peace.
On appeal to the circuit court, Britt recovered a verdict by peremptory instruction and had judgment accordingly. The peremptory instruction was error. Prior to 1890 rent was an incident of the reversion, and the assignee of the rent note could not distrain for its payment, but by chapter 51, acts 1890, any assignee or holder of a claim for rent was given the remedy of distress before that time exercisable only by the lessor or the assignee of the reversion, and this remedy is also secured to the assignee of the rent claim by § 2501, annotated code. It is obvious, therefore, that the administrator of Smallwood was entitled to distrain for any balance due on the rent note.
The advances made by Smallwood, however, would not support an attachment for rent. The agreement between Britt and Smallwood did not make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Hill
...that the assignee of notes for rent or supplies is entitled to the same remedy as the original landlord. Sections 2331-36; Coker v. Britt, 78 Miss. 583, 29 So. 833; v. Blanton, 71 Miss. 821, 15 So. 822. The landlord's lien passes by assignment of the rent note. Newman v. Bank, 66 Miss. 323,......
-
O'keefe v. Mclemore.
...and afterwards adopted, is presumed to have been adopted as construed by the court. I would seriously contend that the court in the Coker case erred in holding that said section of the code was, effect, the same as chapter 51 of the Acts of 1890, in that the word assigns as used in said sec......
-
O'Keefe v. McLemore
...and afterwards adopted, is presumed to have been adopted as construed by the court. I would seriously contend that the court in the Coker case erred in holding that said section of the code was, effect, the same as chapter 51 of the Acts of 1890, in that the word assigns as used in said sec......