SümmaRy proceedin'os, in the nature of Ejectment, tried before hi? Honor, Judge Buxton, at the Spring Term, 1874, of Cumberland Superior Court. The plaintiff originally instituted proceedings under the “Landlord and Tenant” Act, before a Justice of the Peace, which were brought by the appeal of the defendant, to the Superior Court.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1874
¶3
The position, “there can be no restitution to Love for all of his rights passed by the assignment, in bankruptcy, and there can be no restitution to McRae,
for he never had possession,
is a mere play upon words. McRae, as assignee, in the forcible language of the books, stands
in the shoes
of Love; that is, he-takes his place, and becomes entitled to all of his rights in re
*20
spect to property, as distinguished from his rights in respect to his person. These are not at all interfered with by the order to put McRae in possession of the land, in regard to which, this proceeding was instituted before a Justice of the Peace. The Justice of the Peace had no jurisdiction, his action was void, and the due administration of the law requires that the parties should be put in
statu quo.'1'1
No error.
