
    Jacks against Smith.
    Distress will not lie, unless upon some lease, written or parol, upon which some rent certain is reserved.
    IN an action of replevin, the defendant Smith, avowed the taking of the goods for rent in arrear, and produced a deed from one Kerr, of the premises, to the defendant, but offered no written lease to the plaintiff, Jacks, nor any evidence even of a parol lease» He rested solely on the right or conveyance of the land in question, from Kerr.
    
    For the plaintiff, it was contended, that he came into possession of the premises under a lease from one Bourke, a former proprietor, to whom he had regularly paid his rent; that the house was attached for Bourke's debts, and purchased by Smith; and that there was no privity of contract between him and Smith, of course that he was not answerable in this way, by distress, for any rent that became due after Bourke's title ceased, and he became the owner.
    Harper, for plaintiff.
    
      Read, for defendant.
   The Court

(present, the Chief Justice, Burke, J. and Bay, J.)

were decidedly of opinion, that there.must be some lease, either written or parol, to justify a distress. Some sum certain must be reserved, for which the landlord can enter and seize the tenant’s goods in this summary me» thod. Though they thought an .action for use and occupation, would He against the .tenant., for the tipie he- held the-house after it was sold.

Vide the case of Smith v. The Sheriff of Charleston District, post.  