Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 Ill. 497

Wetsel v. Mayers

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1878

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1878-01-15

C. B. Smith, Judge, presiding. This was replevin, by appellees against appellant, for 100 acres of corn. The declaration contains two counts. The first is for taking and detaining, and the second for detaining.

Relies on Thompson v. Mead

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1987

11 state decisions

40187818801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Scholfield

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2Whether appellant would have been entitled to the possession of the corn, had he, before the levy of the execution or the commencement of this suit, tendered appellees the amount of rent due, is a question not before us. Nor is it now material to inquire whether, in any case, the tenant can, by contract alone with the landlord, invest him with an absolute title to the property upon which he has a lien for rent, as against the claims of judgment creditors of the tenant.

¶3The statute (Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 661, § 31,) provides, that “ every landlord shall have a lien upon the crops grown or growing upon the demised premises for the rent thereof, whether the same is payable wholly or in part in money or specific articles of property or products of the premises, or labor, and also for the faithful performance of the terms of the lease. Such lien shall continue for the period of six months after the expiration of the term for which the premises were demised.” We have held that this lien does not grow out of the levy of a distress warrant—that it is a paramount lien, of which every person must take notice, and which can be lost only by waiver or failing to enforce it at the proper time. Thompson v. Mead et al. 67 Ill. 395 ; Prettyman v. Unland et al. 77 id. 206.

¶4We are aware of no principle upon which it can be asserted that the abandonment of the proceedings by distress can be held to be a waiver of the lien, it not being dependent, in any degree, upon those proceedings for vitality. Suppose it be conceded the parties could not, by their mutual agreement, vest the landlord with the absolute title to the corn, to the exclusion of the claim of appellant—what follows ? Simply that that agreement was nugatory, and the rights of the parties are to be determined as if .it.had not been made.

¶5Then the appellees have a prior lien upon the property to secure them in the rent due them, and they are entitled to its possession to enforce their lien.

¶6Perceiving no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

¶7Judgment affirmed.

/91/ill/497 · .json · Public domain