Case ID: miss_20/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Clayton", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margaret Smith vs. John Bobb, Administrator of Peter Mintzer, deceased.
    By the statutes of this state, (Hutch. Code, 812, see. 22,) the right of the landlord to a distress fou rent, against the executor or administrator of his tenant for years, is expressly given.
    An affidavit to procure a distress warrant against the administrator of the tenant, which alleged that “B., administrator of the estate of M., was indebted to S.,” was held to be sufficient to show in what capacity the debt was due ; the words “ administrator of the estate of M.,” were not merely descriptio persona.
    
    In error from the circuit court of Adams county; Hon. Stan-hope Posey, judge.
    On the 2d day of January, 1846, Joseph H. Bentley, agent for Margaret Smith, made oath before a justice of the peace of Adams county, that “ John Bobb, administrator of the estate of Peter Mintzer, was justly indebted to her, the said Mrs. Margaret Smith, in the sum of one thousand dollars, for rent due and in arrear of Apple or Fairchild’s Island,” &c. A writ of attachment issued, and was levied on two slaves; whereupon Bobb, as administrator, sued out of the circuit court of Adams county a writ of replevin, upon which the slaves were restored to him; and at the return term of the writ, the circuit court, on motion of Bobb, quashed the distress warrant and proceedings, and Smith sued out this writ of error.
    
      Thomas Reed, for plaintiff in error, •
    1. As to the right to the writ, cited Hutch. Code, p. 899, sec. 20, 22; 1 Yirg. Code, p. 113, sec. 1; 32 Hen. 8, ch. 37, sec. 4; 2 Lomax, Ex. 403, 404; Toller, Ex. 476 ; Braiihwaita v. Cook-sey, 1 H. Black. 465 ; Com. Landl. & Ten. 371.
    
      2. As to sufficiency of affidavit, Hutch. Code, 808, art. 5, sec. 1.
    
      J. T. McMurran, for defendant in error.
    Take the first provision of the statute, How. & Hutch. Dig. 558, sec. 46, and the remedy is confined to the writ against the tenant alone. So the next section is confined to the replevy of the property by the tenant, and the law never intended an administrator to be put to the giving a bond and replevying. But in the 49th section, where there is a distress and no rent due the owner, his executors and administrators have a remedy.
    Again, p. 563, sec. 64, gives an action of debt against the executor or administrator of the tenant, and a distress for arrear-ages, in favor of the executor or administrator of the landlord, while the premises continue in possession of the tenant in demesne, who ought to have paid the rent, or in the possession of any one claiming by descent, &c., but no remedy against'the executor or administrator, by distress; so the 66th section only extends the preceding remedies to cases where the lease has determined.
    The affidavit is in substance and in fact, that John Bobb is indebted to Margaret Smith in the sum of $1000, and the attachment is issued and levied on the goods and chattels of Peter Mintzer, deceased. It is true the words, “ administrator of the estate of Peter Mintzer,” are added, but they are merely descriptio persones.
    
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court. . ,

This was a distress for rent sued out by the lessor against the administrator of the lessee. A motion was made in the court below to quash the attachment or warrant of distress, which was sustained, and the cause thence comes to this court.

Two positions are relied on in support of this action of the court; first, that, by the statute, the remedy is given against the tenant alone, and not against his representatives ; or, if this be erroneous, then that the affidavit made to obtain the warrant of distress was insufficient.

The words of the statute, regulating the proceeding in .this instance are, The executors and administrators of any person or persons, having rent in arrear, or due upon any demise or lease for life or lives, or for years or at will, although the same be determined, shall and may have the like remedy, by action of debt or by distress, against the person who ought to have paid the same, his or her executors or administrators, as the testator or intestate, if living, might or could have done.” Hutch. Code, 812, sec. 22. The first section of the act provides the mode in which the landlord might proceed against the tenant.

By the common law, and by the English statute, 32 Hen. 8, c. 37, the remedy by distress was confined to the lessor himself and his representatives against the tenant, in tail, in fee, or for life, and his representatives, but did not extend to the executors of tenants for years. Comyn, Landl. & Ten., 4 Law Lib. 208. But our statute is more comprehensive, and extends the remedy expressly against the representatives of tenants for years. We think therefore the objection cannot be sustained.

Neither do we think the objection to the affidavit is valid. The statement is, that “ John Bobb, administrator of the estate of Petér Mintzer, is justly indebted to Margaret Smith.” This is something more than a mere descriptio personae.; it is a statement of _the character in which the debt is due. The administrator represents the estate of the decedent; he is clothed with the legal title, and is liable in his character of administrator for its debts. 1 Grattan, 87; Steele v. McDowell, 9 S. & M. 200. The allegation that he is indebted as administrator, is sufficient to charge the estate, if the proof makes out the liability.

■These are the points mainly relied on in argument, and we do not deem it necessary to notice'the others.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions that the warrant of distress be sustained, and farther proceedings had according to law.

Judgment reversed.