
    Haywood & Son v. O’Brien et al.
    1. Landlord and Tenant: assignment op lease: attachment. The-assignment of a lease of real estate is valid, and vests 'the assignee with all the rights’of the landlord, including the right to an attachment for-non-payment of rent.
    
      Appeal from Gtinton District Oourt.
    
    Monday, December 8.
    The petition states that Robert' Huffman, by an instrument' in writing, leased certain premises to the defendants for a. term of years, the rent to be paid annually in money, and that the lease had been assigned to the plaintiffs. The rent being-unpaid, the plaintiffs asked that a landlord’s attachment be-issued, which was done, and certain property of the defendants attached. The defendants moved the court to quash the attachment on the grounds, in substance, that the lease was not assignable, and that the relation of landlord and tenant did. not exist between plaintiffs and the defendant. The motion, was overruled, and,the defendants appeal.
    
      John I. Mullcmy and Aylett B. Gotton, for appellants.
    
      J. 8. da D. J. DforUng and W. W. Stevens, for appellees.
   Seevers, J.

— It was held in Lufkin da Wilson v. Preston,. cmte, page 235, that leases like the one in question were-assignable, and that the assignee was entitled thereunder to the rent. This being true, we think it follows that the assignee is entitled to a writ. of attachment, as provided by statute. The assignment of the lease carried with it the lien of the lessor, and all the remedies for its enforcement.

Affirmed.  