Bloodworth v. Stevens

Citations

• 51 Miss. 475

Syllabus

<p>1. Bent: Recoupment. Replevin.</p> <p>Justification, of torts is not admissible by setoffs, generally, and is excluded in actions ex delicto; but in an action of replevin, testing the legality of a distress, the issue presented as to the “ unlawful taking rests upon the fact, whether the rent is or is not due; and the tenant may show any matter competent to discharge this liability.</p> <p>2. Same: Same: Damages.</p> <p>The right of recoupment exists where the cross demands grow out of the same transaction. In a contract of mutual stipulations, the violation or breach of a covenant and its consequent damages, though unliquidated, may be shown in satisfaction of any demand predicated upon such contract.</p> <p>3. Same: Its incidents. Secs. 1134,1620.</p> <p>Kent is an incident to the reversion, and, before maturity, follows by operation of law, the title to the premises. If accrued before the death of the lessor, it belongs to the personalty of the estate, and goes to the personal representative. If accrued after the death of the lessor, it follows the reversion and belongs to the heir. Sections 1134 and 1620 of the Code of 1871 conform in their theory to this common law doctrine as to the destination of rents, and are merely declaratory of the rule.</p> <p>4. Same : Apportionment of rent. Sea. 1639 of Oode of 1871.</p> <p>There is no provision in our law for the apportionment of rent, except section 1689 of the Code of 1871. The provisions of this section have exclusive application to a tenant for life who has demised lands, etc.</p>