
    Columbia, November Term, 1812.
    Adam McWillie vs. John Hudson.
    Deas, for the Motion. '
    Blanding, Contra.
    
    This was a rule upon the sheriff of Kershaw District, to shew cause why he should not pay over to Edward Watson, the sum of two hundred dollars ; being the amount of rent due to him from John Hudson, on the following statement.
    
      John Hudson agreed with Edward Watson, early in December, 1809, for the hire cf a plantation, was to take possession of it at any time after the first of January, on which day, in the subsequent year, he considered the rent due. The sum to be paid was two hundred dollars; and he was to pay fifty dollars as soon as convenient: no part of the rent was paid$ a levy was made under the above execution, on or about the 5th of December, 1810, on the crop, and a waggon and horses, which were on the plantation, and a bond taken for the delivery of the property on sale day. Before the property was removed, and after the first day of January, 1811, notice was given to the sheriff not to pay over the money that should be collected on the above execution, until he should fifst pay the sum of two hundred dollars due for the rent. The levy being made before the rent was due, and the property sold, the right of the landlord, it was contended, was destroyed. The judge below stated that on that 
      &oxmd’ discharged the rule. The motion is now made to reverse that decision.
   Colcock, j.

By the stat. 8 Ann. chap. 14, made of force in this state, entitled an act for the better security of rents, and to prevent frauds committed by tenants (Orimke, P. L. 97.) it is enacted that no goods or chattels whatsoever, on any lands which are leased, shall be liable to be taken by vir* tue of any execution, unless the party at whose suit the execution issues, shall pay to the landlord such sum or sums as shall be due for rent — Provided, the same do not amount to more* than one year’s rent. And it gives power to the sheriff, in case the plaintiff in execution pay such rent to the landlord, to levy as well for that as the debt.

The object of the statute is to give the landlord a lien on the property of the tenant, without the necessity of a distress, so as to prevent the practice of fraud on him, whereby he might be deprived of his rent. But from the words of the statute, it is clear that this lien does not attach until the rent becomes due. The words of the first clause are, All such u sum or sums of money, as shall be due for rent u for the said premises, at the time of the taking <l such goods and chattels, by virtue of such execu-(i tion. — Provided, the said arrears of rent do not u amount to more than one year’sand I take it for granted, in this case, that the rent was not due when the execution was levied. The lien then had not attached. The legal operation of the levy, was to vest the property in the sheriff: so that when the rent became due, the property was not in the tenant.

I was inclined to think that the mode of proceeding by a rule was not proper, if the case had been made out; but I now think that, a case arising ,under the statute, it would be the most proper remedy : and the note to the case of jBristow and Wright, Douglass, 665, seems to warrant this opinion. I am of opinion that the motion ]be rejected.

All the Court concurred.  