Case Name: Samuel Snyder ads. Miles Riley
Court: South Carolina Court of Errors
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1843-05
Citations: 1 Speers 272
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Snyder ads. Miles Riley.
Judges: O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Wardlaw, J. J., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
Samuel Snyder ads. Miles Riley.
1. Where the tenant of a landlord whose interest has been sold by the Sheriff, after-wards, with notice of that fact, paid the whole year’s rent to his original landlord, it was; held that the purchaser was entitled to recover from the tenant that proportion of the rent which accrued after his purchase.
2. It has been usual to allow to the purchaser his proportion of the rent, measured from the time of his purchase. (See Moore vs. Tv/rpin and Powers, a/nte, 32.)
3. Where the tenant voluntarily pays the whole rent before due to his former landlord, and after notice of his landlord being changed, there can be no reason in turning the purchaser round to his possible remedy against him. If the tenant had received no notice, and had paid die rent only at maturity, such might have been the proper course.
Before Butler, J., Barnwell, Fall Term, 1842.
Assumpsit for rent of land. In March, 1840, the defendant rented about 40 acres of land of one James Owens, it being part of a tract on which Owens lived at the time. In April ensuing, the entire tract was sold at Sheriff’s sale, as the property of James Owens, and purchased by the plaintiff, who took possession immediately after. From the situation of the parties, it was evident that defendant knew that Owens’s title was vested in the plaintiff. Before the rent was due (in June, 1840,) the defendant paid the amount of the rent to Owens, but before he made the payment, Snyder, in the presence of a witness, demanded the payment, which was refused. And the question was, whether the defendant had proper and sufficient notice, and whether the payment to Owens, the original landlord, w’as a good payment. The presiding Judge decreed that the defendant should pay the plaintiff $30, which in effect was to deprive him of the benefit of the payment to Owens, except as to $10, which might have been the sum due Owens for the time it was his land before Sheriff’s sale.
The defendant moved for a new trial, on the following grounds:
1. That no written or sufficient notice was given to the defendant by the plaintiff of his having purchased the land, and his right to receive the rent for the same.
2. Because the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the rent at all.
Aldrich, for the motion.
Patterson, contra.
Under the statute of Anne, the notice need not be in writing. The notice here was good. Smith’s Leading Cases, 315, note. . Riley knew that Snyder was in possession, and claimed the rent, when he made the payment.

Opinion:
Curia, per
Richardson, J.
The facts of thfe case make this question. After notice to Riley that Snyder had purchased the land, did the rent accruing after the purchase, pass to Snyder 7
It is to be observed that the whole year's rent was not due until after the purchase, and a question might perhaps be raised, whether the rent was not due to the freeholder at the moment it-became due, arid whether any part of it could be due-to any one but-this freeholder ; because no rent was due before the end of the year,' when he had. become the owner, and of course entitled to all the productions and incidents of his freehold, or at least to such as'came to maturity after the purchase.
But however such a question might be resolved, it has been usual to allow to the purchaser his proportion of the rent, measured frorii the time of his purchase.. And .in the case of Moore vs. Turpin and Powers, decided last'term, this court recognized the right of the purchaser to that extent — no more being demanded. .
And the presiding Judge having decreed the rent accor-. ding to the same proportion, and the tenant having voluntarily paid the whole rent to his former landlord, before it became due, and after notice,of his landlord being changed, there can be no reason in turning the purchaser round to his possible recovery against him. If the tenant had received no notice, and had paid the rent :only at maturity, such might have been the proper course ; but in this case, we perceive no reason for referring the plaintiff to that remedy. ' ,
The motion is'therefore dismissed..
O'Neall, Evans, Butler and Wardlaw, J. J., concurred.