
    Geiger’s Adm’r v. Harman’s Ex’x.
    July Term, 1846,
    Lewisburg.
    (Absent Baldwin, J.)
    Landlord and Tenant — Lien on Chattels of Tenant— Effect. — The landlord’s lien for a year’s rent, on the goods and chattels of his tenant, does not extend to protect them from being taken by virtue of any execution, except in cases, where the said goods and chattels shall be in, or upon the demised premises.
    Henry Imboden was the tenant of George Geiger of a house in the town of Staunton. His tenancy ended on the 13th of April 1838, when under a notice to quit from Geiger he left the premises, being then indebted to Geiger 100 dollars for rent. Within thirty days thereafter an execution was levied upon the goods and chattels of Im-boden ; they being the same which were ^'removed from the demised premises; and within the same period Geiger gave notice to the sheriff that he claimed satisfaction of the rent due him, out of the proceeds of the sale thereof.
    Imboden being in fact insolvent, and Lewis Harman being bound in the execution as security; and having indemnified the sheriff, gave him notice not to pay Geiger. The sheriff applied to the Superior Court for the county of Augusta, from whence the execution issued, for directions in the case; and the parties being brought before the Court, and heard, the Court held that Harman was entitled to have the money applied to the execution. From this judgment Geiger obtained a supersedeas to this Court.
    J. B. Baldwin, for the appellant.
    Michie, for the appellee.
    
      
      He had. been counsel In the cause.
    
   CABEBB, P.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Although the landlord’s right to distrain the goods and chattels of his tenant, continues, in some cases, where the said goods and chattels have been removed from the demised premises, yet, the Court is of opinion that the landlord’s lien for a year’s rent, on the goods and chattels of his tenant, does not extend to protect them from being taken by virtue of any execution, except in cases, where the said goods and chattels shall be in, or upon the demised premises.

The judgment is therefore affirmed with costs.  