
    Rutlege vs. Walton.
    The landlord has a lien upon the crop raised upon the rented premises, whether raised by his lessee or a sub-lessee under his tenant; whether due by note or otherwise. And this lien attaches to the crop in behalf of the landlord, although the sub-lessee may have given a note to the tenant, or paid him for the rent.
    John March was a-lessee for years; he assigned his lease to Andrew King, and King assigned his lease to Joel Rutlege, who cultivated the land. March sued King for the rent, and recovered a judgment against him. The execution on this judgment, was levied on the crop of Rutlege, who had given King a note for the rent, or had paid him. Daniel B. Walton, the defendant, was the constable who made the levy.
    The court charged that the judgment was a lien on the rent corn, and that the constable was justified in making the levy and sale,
    
      J. Hall, for plaintiff in error..
    
      R. C. Foster, for defendant in error..
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The act of 1825, ch. 21, creates the lien in express terms, whether due by note, account or otherwise. The act was passed to secure the owner of the rented premises in his rents. It would not be tolerated, for the sub-lessee to pay to the lessee of the owner of the land, and thereby defeat the landlord of the lien the law gave him.

Judgment affirmed.  