The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1876-01-19
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
Cases Decided Monday, Jan. II.
PREPARED FOR THE CLARION BY FRANK
JOHNSTON, ESQ.
AsloOdwOrsEs w.. w. g.. Stephens
Adrm;aiStratrix.
Opinion of the Court By SIMRALL, J.

Opinion of the Court By SIMRALL, j.
This was an attachment for rent, brought
by the Administrators of Wiley II. Steph-
ems deceased against the plaintiff in error
Inc latter rented ninety-n acres of land
Tor the year 1872, at $500 per acre, payable
at me END Of the year. BY the contract the
lessor was TO keep the fences in repair The
lessor died before the rent became due. To
the aYowry the lessee set up a claim for
damages to lis crop arising out OF the les
sOr's failure to perform his covenant to re
pair the fencing. Evidence was offered to
show the bad condition of the fencing and
damage done the crop by cattle, which
had entered the premises. This was exclud-
ed by the Court.
The Court instructed the Jury that the
Administrators Of the lessor could maintain
the action, although the rent fell due after
the lessons death. And refused an instruc-
tion for the defendant announcing the con-
verse Of this proposition, that the rent fail
ing due after the death Of the lessor descend
ed, to his heirs. and did not go to the per-
sOnal representative as assets.
The action OF the Court on these questions
assigned for error. Held:
|. 1t is not well settled that tenant need
not sue in cross action for damages re-
suting from breach of lessons covenants in
the contract of lease; but may recOup such
damages in the action for the rent This
right of recOupment arises where the cross
demand grows out of the same contract on
transaction. Where the contract contains
stipulatiOns the defendant may rely upon a
breach of a covenant in his favor, and the
damages aecruing theretrom as total or
partial satisfaction of the demand arising
out of another part of the same contract
the subject of the plaintiffs suit.
ii. The principle that recOupment Is not
allowable in an action OF repleVin, if correct,
does not apply TO a defence made to the
avOWry of the lessor, showing that the rent
claimed or any part of it is not legally due,
III. "Rent is compensation for the
possession Of u cOrpOrcal inherit anCe," and
profit issuing out Of land in return for its
use. 1t is incident 10 the reVersiOn, at
taches itself to the ownership and follows a
transfer OF the premises" Rent not &C
crued follows the land into the hands of a
purchaser
". AT common law ifthe lessor dies be
| fore the rent falls due, the rent will go &c
| the heirs as an incident to the reyersiOn
and as part o the real estate. And this is
| the rule III this State.
V. By statutes of 4th and 9th William
! in England, rent service and rent charge
which are determined by the death O. a per
son between rent days are cOilectabie pro
! ratio upon a principle of appOrtlO"mtnt
/ Bu' in this State there is no adch statute
! VI. Sections 1874, and 1920 code 1871
| do not change the common law rule which
passed the rent with the inheritance to thC
heirs where it was not due at the death o
! the ancestor.
VII Section 1886, Code 1870 gives TIL,
right of action to the personal representa-
tives for rent due and unpaid at the time o
the lessons deaCh; but this leaves untOuch
ed the right of the heirs to rents not due a
the time Of his death.
VIII. Section 1859, Code 1870 apple
exclusively to a tenant for life who has de
missed premises, and gives to his execute
the right to recover a proportion of tn
rent which accrued before the time of hi
death. If this statute applied to this cas-
nothing would be due the administrators
for the tenant has paid more rent proper
lionably than arose up to the lessons deati
Reversed and reDldpded.