Opinion ID: 249441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Superiority of the Landlord's Lien

Text: 28 The final argument of the Bank against the landlord is that the Bank's lien was superior to the landlord's lien. 29 It is true that even though the landlord had a valid lien on the proceeds of the sale of the merchandise inventory, the Bank's lien should not have been postponed in payment (under Sec. 67, sub. c(1) of the Federal Bankruptcy Act; see footnote 4, supra) unless the landlord's lien was superior to the Bank's lien under Pennsylvania law. As the Court below points out, before the Uniform Commercial Code, a landlord's lien was given superiority over other liens by Pennsylvania statute 17 and case-law. 18 The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to a landlord's lien, 19 and, therefore, we conclude, does not change existing Pennsylvania law. 30 The Bank offered one final argument against the superiority of the landlord's lien which was adequately answered by the Court below. 20 The Referee, then, correctly applied the doctrine of the Quaker City case (footnote 9, supra) in postponing payment of the Bank's lien until costs of administration, claims for wages, and the landlord's lien were paid in full. 31