
    Reuben Haynes, Appellant, vs. Edmond McGeehee et ux., Appellees.
    A landlord lias no ground to maintain a bill In equity praying that personal property (crops), claimed by the tenant to be exempt from levy and sale, may be declared not to be so exempt, and that it be sold to satisfy rent and supplies furnished, there being no specific lien requiring the aid of a court of equity to enforce It, and no statute authorizing a proceeding in equity to determine the question of the exemption of personal property. The remedies at law aro complete and adequate.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison county.
    Appellant filed his bill in equity against appell.ees alleging that in January, 1878, he leased to them thirty-six acres of land and put them in possession, under an agreement by parol that they should give him a “rent note” therefor at the rate of two. dollars per acre. They after-wards, on demand, refused to give the “rent note,” but continued in possession and raised a crop of corn, cotton, &c. He also alleges that he furnished supplies to them to enable them to raise the crop, to the amount of twenty-four dollars. It is also alleged that the rent is due at the time of filing the bill and appellees refuse to pay, and have secretly and fraudulently removed a portion of the crop from the place, and he believes they will fraudulently dispose of .it unless restrained. He further alleges that he sued out a distress warrant for the purpose of distraining upon the crop, but the officer having the writ having been notified by defendants that they claimed all the crops as exempt from seizure under the homestead and exemption laws, and therefore did not levy.
    A copy of the appellees’ affidavit, inventory of personal property and claim of exemption, filed and recorded in the office of'the County Judge, is filed as an exhibit.
    The bill prays that a decree may be made declaring that the cotton, corn, &c., raised on the land are not exempt from levy, but are subject to be seized and sold for the rent and supplies, and that they be sold and the proceeds applied to that purpose.
    The defendants demurred to the bill, upon the ground that complainant does not show a case entitling him to relief in a court pf equity. The court decreed in favor of defendants and dismissed the bill, from which decree complainant appealed, and now seeks to reverse it, upon the following grounds:
    1st. Because a landlord has a lien, for rent, on the crops grown, of superior dignity to all others, and not subject to the claim of exemption;
    2d. Because rent is a debt of a superior nature, issuing out of the realty, it is purchase-money, and a lien, therefore cannot be defeated by a claim of exemption.
    3. Because supplies are purchase-money, and constitute a lien upon the crops.
    
      F. W. Pope for Appellant.
    
      D. W. G. Willis for Appellees.
   The Cb^ef-Justioe

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the allegations in the bill it is plain that the complainant has mistaken his remedy. At the common law the landlord’s claim for rent is deemed superior to any other demand, and he was, therefore, given his remedy by distress of jthe goods of the tenant, without resort to the courts for judgment and execution. His other right is to sue in the courts of law for use and occupation, or for the agreed rent. He has no standing in a court of equity for the purpose of compelling the payment out of any particular property, unless he has such specific lien by mortgage or otherwise aS to render a resort to chancery necessary to foreclose it. Without this specific lien exists, the remedy at law .is simple and ample. If the landlord distrain or levy upon the property of his tenant for rent, the question of the exemption from levy may be tried by an action of replevin, or in case or trespass for the wrongful seizure. If no such action be brought, the landlord is not prevented from making his money.

It is unnecessary here to examine the effect of the statutes in respect to the rights and remdies of landlords and tenants, because none of them contemplate proceedings in equity, except where a lien exists in the nature of a mortgage duly executed as required by such statutes.

The suggestion that "the claim for rent and supplies furnished is equivalent to a demand for purchase-money and therefore.may be enforced in equity, even if it was correct as to the character of the claim, is not so as to the remedy. The equitable remedies for the enforcement .of liens for purchase money apply only to real property.

The appellant bases his right to file this bill .upon the provision of section 9 of the act of 1869, (Chap. 1715,) providing for setting apart a homestead and personal property to be exempted from forced sale. That section has exclusive reference to real estate claimed as a homestead, and‘authorizes the court to hear and determine the rights of the parties according to the rules and practice of the court of chancery where the creditor claims that -any part of’ the real estate claimed as exempt is nqt exempt within the meaning of the law. The 7th and 8th sections of the act provide a method of ascertaining what personal property is exempt.

The party here having an adequate and complete remedy at law, and there being no statute authorizing a resort to a court of equity for the relief prayed, the demurrer was properly sustained and the bill dismissed. (See Bryan vs. Long, 14 Fla.)

.The decree is affirmed with costs.  