Longstreth v. Pennock

The Pennsylvania statute of June 16th, 1836, which provides that where property upon demised premises, and liable to distraint, is seized on execution and sold, the,officer making the sale shall pay the rent (provided it does not exetjed one year’s rent) in preference to the judgment on which the execution issued, extends, by an equitable intendment, to a seizure of^oods similarly situated, by an assignee in bankruptcy. A landlord’s claim is accordingly, in Pennsylvania, first paid out of the bankriwit’s goods liable to distress on demised premises, and before makjég a dividend of their proceeds among the creditors generally.

E&ror to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania; the case beiifig thus: Á. Pennsylvania statute of June 16th, 1836,* enacts as fallows: “ The goods and chattels being in or upon any messuage, lands, or tenements, which are or shall be demised for life or years or otherwise, taken by virtue of an execution, and liable to the distress of the landlord, shall be liable for the payment of any sums of money due for rent at the time of taking such goods in-execution : Provided, That such rent shall not exceed one year’s rent. “After the sale by the officer, of any goods or chattels as aforesaid, he shall first pa}7 out of the proceeds of such sale, the rent so due, and the surplus thereof, if any, he shall apply towards satisfying the judgment mentioned in such execution.” This statute being iu force, Pennock rented a warehouse in Philadelphia to Wattson & De Young, at the yearly rent of $4500, payable in equal quarterly instalments. Wattson & De Young, the lessees, being in possession of the premises, and having therein a stock of goods more than sufficient to pay the rent if a distress had been made, were adjudicated bankrupts, and Longstreth, their assignee, took possession of the premises, and of the stock upon them. The landlord claimed of him the rent due and accrued up to the date of the issuing of the warrant in bankruptcy, and it having been paid to him under a stipulation to restore the same if the assignee were not allovved credit therefor on the settlement of his account, and he not having been allowed such credit, this action was brought by hi'fSqto test his right to get back what had been so paid for rent accY-tting prior to the warrant, which was for much less than a yeaNs rent. The Circuit Court adjudged that the payment was rightfully made, and that the assignee could not recover it back.'\The assignee now brought the case here.