
    Charles Hill v. Enoch George.
    Lakdlojsd and Tenant. Landlord’s lien. Act of 1825, ch. 81. Act of 1856, ch. 77. The lien of the landlord upon the crop raised on the promises, to secure the payment of the debt for rent, given by the act of 1825, eh. 31, is superior to the claim of the debtor under the lavs of the State exempting certain property from execution. The act of 1856, ch. 77, is general in its terms, and does not repeal or modify the act of 1825, ch. 31, or in any way impair the lien given by that act.
    EROM DEKALB.
    His Hon. Judge Goodall was of opinion, and so instructed the jury, that the lien of the landlord was not superior to the claim of the debtor under the exemption laws of the State. The defendant appealed.
    Brien & Cox, for the plaintiff in error.
    Nesmith, for the defendant in error,
    argued that:
    By the act of 1820, ch. 11, § 1, any officer levying upon property exempt from execution is liable to an action at the instance of the party aggrieved.
    This corn was exempt from execution. Acts 1855-6, ch. 77, §§ 1 and 2. Any person engaged in agriculture, being the head of a family, shall have exempt from any execution or attachment twenty-five barrels of corn. By the 4th section of same act, all laws, and parts of laws, in conflict with the provisions of this act are repealed expressly. These acts exempting property from execution are to be construed so as to advance the remedy the Legislature intend to afford. Bachman v. Orawford, 3 Hum., 213-217. That intention was to provide sustenance for the .wife and children when the husband was improvident.
    But it is contended for the defendant that the act of 1825 gave the landlord a lien upon the crop for the reiit. Admitted. But this lien must be enforced by execution; and twenty-five barrels of corn are exempt from execution by the acts of 1855-6. And this lien of the landlord is only a lien, and gives him no property whatever in the crop. Lawrence v. Jenldns., 7 Yer., 494.
    The Legislature only intended, by the landlord’s lien law, to protect him against fraud and collusion, between his tenants and third persons. It only gives his “debt” precedence over “all other debts.” “All other debts” must be collected by execution or attachment.' So must this. If the act of 1825 ever gave the landlord. .a right "to sell all the crop for the rent, which plaintiff denies, it is expressly repealed by the 4th section of the act of 1855-6, ch. 77; for such a law as contended for by the defendant is in direct conflict with the provisions of the act of 1855-6. See Browning v. Jones, 4 Hum., 69 and 72; 3 Kent, 8th edition,'top page 600, marginal page 480, note d.
    
    Articles necessary to prevent families from suffering are exempt from attachment, execution, distress, or other legal process. Distress is the remedy for rent in New York. The statutes of Tennessee are here referred to to show that such articles are exempt here.
   Wsight, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this record is, whether the lien of the landlord upon the crop made on the premises to secure the payment of the debt for rent, given by the act of 1825, ch. 31, is superior to the claim of the debtor under the laws of the State exempting certain property from execution ? It has been repeatedly held that the proper mode of enforcing this lien is by judgment and execution against the tenant by the landlord, and that it must be levied on the crop growing or made on the rented premises. Davis v. Parks, 6 Yer., 252-260; Hardeman v. Shumate, Meigs’ Rep., 398-403. This was done in this case, anu the proper steps taken to maintain and enforce the lien under the statute.

But it is argued for George, the tenant, that the lien does not exist between landlord and tenant, but only as between the landlord and other creditors of the tenant; and that if this be not so, still that if the tenant only have left the corn allowed him by the exemption laws of the State, the same cannot be taken to satisfy the landlord, though grown upon the rented premises.

Neither of these positions can be maintained. The statute gives the lien directly against the tenant as well as his other creditors.

It grows out of the renting, and the relation of landlord and tenant, and in the very nature of the case must be superior to the right of the tenant. The position of the tenant is, in this respect, analogous to the claim of the mechanic’s lien or widow’s dower, asserted against the lien of the vendor of real estate. Will there be no lien if the tenant raise no more corn than the law allows him? Was this the meaning of the statute? And will not such a construction operate, in fact, to the prejudice of the poor, and prevent them from so readily renting lands or getting homes?

The act of 1856, ch. 77, (Acts 1855-6, page 89,) is general in its terms, and does not, in our opinion, repeal or modify the act of 1825, ch. 31, or in any way impair the lien of the landlord under that statute. The two acts may well stand together.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.  