
    James Moorhead v. Rachel Barrett.
    Avowry By an administratrix for rent in arrear, set forth, the demise under which the tenant held, made in her own name after her intestate’s death. Held, that no further title need he shown, and a verdict for the avowant was right.
    A landlord is not hound to set out in his avowry for rent in arrear any further title than the lease under which his tenant entered and held the premises.
    The Statute 11 Creo. II. c. 19, though not expressly made of force in this State, has Been adopted in practice.
    Before Earle, J., at Charleston, May Term, 1839.
    This was an action of replevin. Defendant avowed for rent in arrear. She was the administratrix of her deceased husband, and the demise was after his death and in her name. The plaintiff in replevin, having been called on by the avow-ant’s agent before the distress, acknowledged the tenancy and the sum due as rent in arrear, and promised payment. The avowry did not describe the defendant as administratrix, nor set out the title; and on these grounds exception was taken, but overruled by the Court. Verdict for the avowant.
    The plaintiff appealed on the same exceptions, urging, in support of the latter, that the Stat. 11 Geo. II., c. 19, dispensing with the necessity of stating the title of the avowant in the avowry, is not of force here, (1 M’C. R.' 299,) and that the common law rule is the law of this State. (5 Cow. R. 501; 1 Johns. R. 379.)
   Cima, per Butler, J.

The decision of a single point in this case will dispose of all the questions involved in the grounds of appeal, viz.: Is a landlord, who has distrained for rent, bound to set out in his avowry anything more than the lease under which the tenant entered and held the premises 1 The rule of law is unquestionable, that a tenant cannot dispute his landlord’s title: he is estopped, by his own deed, from denying anything contained in it; that constitutes the law of the contract. Hence, in an action to try titles, by a landlord against a tenant holding over, the plaintiff is not required to go farther back into his title than the lease disclosing the relation of the parties, to entitle him to recover the land and damages for its use. If the land itself may be thus recovered, why may not the rent, which is but an issue from the land.

Magrath, for the motion;

Horlbeclc, contra.

The avowry, in this case, sets out the lease under which defendant entered, and by which he bound himself to pay rent to defendant, not as the representative of any one, but absolutely, as Rachel Barrett. He must abide the terms of his deed, and cannot dispute the character of the avowant as therein recognized. This being the case, the plaintiff has no right to require the defendant to set out her title to the premises, but is controlled by the title under which he holds them. There may, possibly, be cases where the plaintiff in replevin may require the avowant to set out title to land, as where the plaintiff is a stranger to the avowant; but, as between landlord and tenant, it never can be necessary.

By Stat. 11 Geo. II., c. 19, sec. 22, (2 Stat. So. Ca. 579,) it is expressly enacted that an avowant in replevin is not bound to state anything more in his avowry than the lease or demise under which the tenant held. This statute has not, it would seem, been expressly made of force in this State. Its provisions, however, have been so uniformly observed in practice, that it may be said to form a part of the law of the land. Indeed, it seems to me to be but declaratory of the general principles regulating the relation of landlord and tenant Motion dismissed.

Gantt, Richardson, and Earle, JJ., concurring. 
      
       See 1 Sp. 289; 2 Rich. 402; 2 MoC. 165 ; Post 251. An.
      
     