
    Ratcliff vs. Daniel.
    Appeal - from Charles county court. This was an act i oft of replevin; The defendant,- .(now appellee,) avowed the' taking of the goods arid chattels iri the place, &c. being a parcel of land called The Mill Lot, of which he was seized in his demesne as of fee; and stating that it Was agreed ' betvfe'en him, arid one William Murdock,, on the 1st of* .January 1819, that Murdoch should enter and occupy the premises for one year from that day, and also from year to year so long as it should please both parties, Murdock .paying therefor yearly and every year $160, in half yearly payments of $80, on the 1st of July and 1st of January.That in virtue of said agreement, the plaintiff, (the appellant,) by the authority and for the use of Murdock, erw * , tered loto the premises, and occupied the same for one. year and a half, ending on the 1st of July 1820; and because the sum of 8240 of the rent was in arrear and unpaid, the defendant avows the taking of the goods, &c. The plaintiff pleaded that no -rent was in arrear, &c.
    
      B, on the lsf of January Í819, rented a.parcel of land to M* fpr one year, and so from year to year, atan an* aiual vent o£#l60, Co be pain half yearly* It was proved that R oe* copied the premis<6s in the years 1819, 1820 and 1821, and that beso occupied * the premises in. 3321, under a contract with D, for the sarate rent, and* on the same terms, in September 1820,-I> claiming #240 for rent in arrear on the 1st of July 3820,distrainedthe property of R. It , v/as also proved that R paid #88 to1 I> on the 18th of May 3821, and #50 on the 18th of August 1821, that R made no application of the first payment, but applied the last payment to his own debt, and then said die owed a part of the rentsthat the property of R, found on the premises at the time of the distress, was liable foF ttbe rent of 1819? and that the payment made on the I8th of May 1821s must be applied’Co'ihe becoming due after the distress in'September 1820*
    
      At the trial the defendant proved by Joseph Turner, a competent witness, that he, as agent for the defendant, contracted with a certain William Murdock for the rent of The Mill Lot belonging to the defendant, for the year 1819, he agreeing to pay therefor the sum of 8160, one half on the 1st of July, and the balance on the 1st of January following, and so from year to year so long as they should please. It was also proved that the plaintiff occupied the premises in the years 1819, 1820 and 1821. The plaintiff then prayed the court to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff’s property found on the premises at the time of the distress was not liable for the rent of 1819. Which, opinion and instruction the court, [Stephen, Ch. J. and Plater A. J.] refused to give; but were of opinion, and instructed the jury, that it was liable. The plaintiff also proved payment to the defendant of 888 on the 18th of May 1821, and 850 on the 18th of August 1821. It was-also proved, that when the payments were made by ilia plaintiff, be. made no application of the payment in May 1821, but applied the payment of August 1821- to his own., debí, and further said, that be owed & part of the rents. It was -also proved that the plaintiff contracted for The Mill Lot, and occupied it. at the same rent, and on the same terms in 1821. The defendant then prayed the court to instruct the jury, that the payment made on the 18th of May 1821, must be applied by them to the rents becoming due after the distress which was made in September 1820. Which instruction the court gave. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    The case, was submitted without argument, to the court, {¡Buchanan, Ch. J. Earle, Martin, Stephen, Arche»» and Dorset, J.'j by
    
      Sionestreet, for the Appellant, and
    
      Stone,, for xhe Appellee.
   JUDGMENT AEFIRMEDk.  