clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 57   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

52 H. 3, CAP. 4, DISTRESS. 57
he does replevy, Piggott v. Birtles, 1 M. & W. 441. An action will lie too for
an excessive distress and leaving a man in possession, though the goods are
not so taken out of the tenant's control as to prevent him from carrying on
his business, Baylis v. Usher, 4 M. & Payne, 790; see Hutchins v. Scott, 2
M. & W. 809; Swann v. Earl Falmouth, 8 B. & C. 456; Beck v. Denbigh, 29
L. J. C. P. 273.
It is held not to be necessary in such an action to prove express malice,
Field v. Mitchell, 6 Esp. 61, and see Sturch v. Clarke, 4 B. & Ad. 113; nor
need the plaintiff allege and prove the precise amount of rent due. Sells v.
Hoare, 1 Bing. 401. But the excess ought to be shewn on the record that it
may appear to the Court to be a case within the Statute. The right of action
accrues upon the taking of the excessive distress, and being so vested can
only be destroyed by a release under seal or satisfaction for the wrong done.
Hence the tenant does not waive his right of action by entering into an
arrangement with the landlord respecting the sale of the goods seized,
Sells v. Hoare, Willoughby v. Backhouse, supra.
Distress for more rent than is due.—In Taylor v. Henniker, 12 A. & E.
488, overruling Avenell v. Croker supra, it was held that an action would
lie for distraining for more rent than was due, though the goods distrained
were of less value than the arrears. But Taylor v. Henniker was in its turn
overruled by Tancred v. Leyland, 16 Q. B. 669, where it was held that the
simple fact of making a distress, accompanied by an untrue claim or pre-
tence that more rent was due than actually was so, was not actionable, no
obligation being cast by the common law on the landlord to inform the
tenant of the amount of rent in arrear for which the distress is made, the
latter by intendment being taken to know when a distress is made what is
in arrear in his land, though if the tenant had thereby suffered any special
damage, as being unable to find a surety in a replevin bond for the pre-
tended amount (while he could have found one who would have joined in it
for the amount really due,) and being thereby prevented from a replevin, or
if the quantity of goods sold was (and there was an averment to that
effect,) more than sufficient to pay the rent actually due, an action would
lie; and this case was followed in French v. Phillips, 1 Hurl. & N. 564.
After Tancred v. Leyland came* the case of Stevenson v. Newnham, 13 44
C. B. 285, where a count averring that the defendant maliciously distrained
for more rent than was due was held bad, because an act not amounting to
a legal injury is not actionable because done with a bad intent. In Glynn v.
Thomas, 11 Exch. 870, the declaration alleged that the defendant wrong-
fully distrained the plaintiff's goods for alleged arrears of rent, and wrong-
fully remained in possession, &c., until the plaintiff was compelled to and
did pay the amount of the pretended arrears to defendant to regain posses-
sion, &c., part only of the alleged rent being due, and it was held to disclose
no ground of action. The Court affirmed Tancred v. Leyland, and observed
that the mere taking or selling on an untrue claim of more rent being in
arrear than actually is due, without such claim being followed by some
special damage, is not actionable; not the taking, because the distrainor is
not bound by the amount for which he claims to distrain, and though he
takes alleging that he takes for an amount exceeding the real arrears, he
may afterwards sell for only what is due; nor the selling, because from a
mere allegation that the distrainor sold for the alleged arrears and costs it

 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 57   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives