The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-05-11
No sos.


"pttpu LaNlEne vs. EDWIN r huSS et. al.
Il appears from the record in this case that an at
tachment, issued at the instance Of the appellees
was leyld on certain slave the property of A. NJ
Beonard. The slave thus destrained was claimed
by Joseph Laylgne, the appellant and by him
pevld under the provisions of the statute. At the
return time Of the writ Lavigne filed his declaration
nreplevln setting forth that the appellees had sued
ont IAN attachment for the rent alleged to be due
them and in arrear by one 4. NJ. Benonard TO the
amount Of seven hundred dollars a. thereaboutn-
that said attachment was levid a certain slave a.
tbs property Of the said 4. NJ Bellonard and aeg-
ing that the said slave 50 levid on at the time.
and for long lime previous thereto, the property Of
the plaintiff and not liable to the distress,
The appelleas in their answer to the said declara-
tons averred that the said slave evd on virtue Of
their attachment sued out against the said A. NJ Bel
lona!d, was at the time Of suing out the same. her
property and was liable for the debt or rent So dne
and IN arrear. To which the appellant replied. ia
king issue upon the allegation. that the said slave
was the property Of the said VI Bellonard and liable
for the rent alleged to be due. and in arrear.
trial being had before jury the issue thus Joined
was found IN favor Of the apPellees, and Judgment
for $500 being double the amount Of rent destraned
ior was entered against the appellant motion for
a new trial was made which was overruled: bill of
exceptions was filed, and this writ Of pros
Numerous objections are urged to the judgment.
but as may be necessary to notice only part of
them will not follow the order inwhich they are
assigned mt VIII direct our attention first to the
| most prominent.
| The answer or ayowry if it may with propriety be
characterized by that term. etup claim or demand
| Tor rent as against Madame Bellonard. the par
| ty alleged 10 be theowner of the slave upon
I
| evidence whatever offered TO prove, or which
| tended 10 prove that the aYOwmens, held debt or
| demand for rent against Madame Bellonard, for
which, under the statute, they were entitled TO des-
| tram II Is hence insisted that without the proper
allegations and ayerrments ~ charge Madame Belon-
ard for rent in and without due proof Of the
existence Of such demand il error in the court
| 70 render any judgment, particularly Judgment for
double the supposed amount Of the rent due and in
| arrear. upon the verdict Of the Jury.
The rights Of the parties IN this case, we appre-
hend are governed by the statute Of the 10th June,
ls22 Hutch Dig S0S( And tits not contested thstin
an action Of replevn instituted under the fifteenth
section Of that act it is incumbent upon the avowant
before she could be entitled 20 judgment against
the plaintiff set forth by proper allegations and
| avemants, his title TO the rent demanded and for
which he had caused attachment to issue; and to
sustain such allegations and averments by legal ana
sufficient evidence.
But it is coutended that different rule applies in
cases IN which third party claiming goods, destran-
ed for rent. proceeds under the provisions Of the
sixteenth seetlon Of the statute. In such cases
it's said that the plaintiff IN repleyn has nothing to
do with the claim for rent the part of the landlord
against ms tenant. That the issue involves simply
the title Of the plaintiff 10 the goods taken under the
distress and which he has repeyied. and il decided
against him, Judgment will be entered for double the
| amount OF the rent destralned for
| We do not agree with this construction Of the
statute. II seems evident that where goods destran.
ed for rent replevied by stranger the law in
tended that he should take the place Of the lessee,
certainly that he should not be placed in worse
condition. The same bond Is required in both cases,
and in Of failure the same judgment Is rendered
against the party who claims the goods which is rem
I
reason founded on common sense, or public policy,
requires that different rules should be applied the
! two cases, unless in such cases the party claiming
the goods taken under distress be held, to have
admitted the justice and amount Of the landlords
! claim for rent. aud there Is no pretenee here for
| such an assumption, The doctrine contended for
would be acear departure from the rule held in ali IN
aagous cases As for example in trials for the right OF
property under attachments and executions Indeed
twould be species of injustice, as well as an absur
duty, as IN tins case, If person permitted with
ont allegations or proof Of any kind whatever, that a
wrong had been inflicted upon him, OF that a right
| was withheld trom him to recover judgment in 3
| court of justice.
The construction which We here adopt is the same
which is applied in Virginia to statute which if moi
identical IN language, Is in substance, the
| own. South ct al VS.. Garner, IL Leigh. 372
We think, therefore. IL the court to en-
ter Judgment on the verdict. and for this error the
Judgment must be reversed, and the cause remandeC
| for new trial with leave TO amend the pleadings.
| As the pleadings on the part of the avowants mus
be amended so to present the proper issues in ,
| proceeding under the statute of this character w,
deem a. unnecessary 70 notice any Of the remaining
| exception. SuTH