Hunter v. Whitfield

Citations

• 89 Ill. 229

Syllabus

<p>1. Landlord’s lien-—distress warrant not essential to lien. The levy of a distress warrant is not essential to the right of possession in a landlord of the property upon which the statute gives him a lien for rent, and such warrant is not the exclusive remedy for the assertion and protection of the lien.</p> <p>2. Where a landlord took possession of a crib of corn belonging to his tenant, for the rent of his premises for that year, it was held, that he had the right to the same as against a purchaser from the tenant, to the extent of the rent due him.</p> <p>3. Same—notice of lien. Where a person purchasing corn of a tenant knows that such tenant had been living on the farm of another where the corn is cribbed, during the year the same was grown, and that the owner of the land was living on the same at the time of the sale and delivery of the grain to him by the tenant, this will be sufficient to charge such purchaser with notice, if notice were necessary, of the lien of the owner of the land as landlord.</p> <p>4. Marshaling assets—applied only in equity. The rule that where one party has two funds to resort to for payment of his demand, he must resort to that upon which another person has no claim, is enforced only in equity, and has no application in a proceeding at law.</p> <p>5. Pleading and evidence—as to title. In a suit upon a replevin bond given in a suit in which a return of the property replevied was ordered, the defendants pleaded property, and that the merits of the suit had not been tried, to which the plaintiff replied property in another as landlord, who only had a lien upon the property for rent, and it was held, that, as the recovery was only for the amount of the rent due, there was no force in the objection that the landlord was not the owner but only entitled to a lien on the property.</p>