
    John Bailey vs. Saml. Wright.
    The acceptance of an obligation of an inferior, or even of an equal, degrefe does not extinguish a prior obligation.
    So, the taking of a new bond, it seems, is no extinguishment of a prior bond, and the obligee may proceed on either.
    The giving of a bond or note for rent is no satisfaction, because the party has a higher security by distress.
    The landlord cannot distrain until the rent is due by the terms of the agreement.
    Tried before judge Richardson, at York, Spring term, 1826.
    This was an action ot replevin.. The defendant avowed the taking for rent in arrears, and produced in evidence a siugle bill by which" the plaintiff promised to pay the defendant two hundred dollars, expressed to be for the rent of defendants house fortheyear eighteen hundred andtwenty two. The court charged the jury that the defendant by receiving the note had waived his right of proceeding by distress; and the jury by their verdict excluded the amount of the note. The defendant now moved for a new trial.
    Because the court misdirected the jury in charging them that the defendant by taking a note for the payment of the rent, for 1822, had barred bis right to distrain therefor.
    
      Clendenin for the motion,
    Contended that the not£ ^iven for rent and not paid did not preclude a distress for the rent. The acceptance of an inferior security will <> t deprive die party of a security of a higher nature. (1 JYott and N Cord 187. Godfrey vs. Newton, 1 Esp. N. F. 72. Ib. 2 part, 168.J
    
      Clendenin and Hill for the motion.
    
      Thomson and Williams contra.
    
      Jl. W. Thomson contra.
    In Martin vs. Mitchell, Harper’s L. R. 445, the question has been settled, that the party going to trial, accepted the terms imposed on him by the court.
   Nott, J.

The acceptance of an obligation of an inferior or even of an equal degree docs not extinguish a prior obligation. The taking pf’a new bond is no extinguishment of a prior bond and the obligee may proceed upon either. The giving of a bond for rent is no satisfaction, because the party has a higher security by distress. The instrument produced in this case is nothing more than a promise to pay the rent, which he acknowledges to be due, and the law provides the remedy by distress. (2 Bac. 290. Tit. Debt Roades vs. Barnes, 1 Burr. 9. Higgin’s case, 6 Coke, 45. 1 Espinasse 235. Buller 182.) The court are of opinion therefore, that the plaintiff liad a right to distrain for the first years rent.

The distress for the second years rent was premature. From the phraseology of the note it will hardly admit oí any other construction, but that it was intended as an entire Contract for a year, or for such part of the year as he should continue to occupy the premises. And that construction is strengthened by the consideration that three months of the time had elapsed before the contract was entered into. It could not have been understood that payments should have been monthly. I think, therefore, the landlord was not authorized to distrain, until the.end of the year or until the tenant had terminated the lease by giving notice that he intended to quit.

A new trial must therefore be granted.  