Ragsdale v. Estis

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Ragsdale v. Estis

42 S.C.L. 429

DecidedMay 15, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 42 S.C.L. 429 (Ragsdale v. Estis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ragsdale v. Estis, 42 S.C.L. 429 (S.C. Ct. App. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

JOHNSON, J.

The rule very clearly is that a lessee cannot distrain upon his sub-lessee for rent in arrear; and the tech'nical reasons seem to be, the want of privity of estate between them — the right of distress being inseparable from the reversion. Prescote vs. De Forest, 16 Johnson, 159. But a more practical reason will be found in the circumstance, that if allowed, th^ landlord might be deprived of the means of distress. If the lessee may distrain, so may the sub-lessee on his lessee, and so on, ad infinitum, and thus the tenant in ■ possession be subjected to infinite distress. ,,

Motioii dismissed.

O’Neall and Harper, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

JOHNSON, J.

The rule very clearly is that a lessee cannot distrain upon his sub-lessee for rent in arrear; and the tech'nical reasons seem to be, the want of privity of estate between them — the right of distress being inseparable from the reversion. Prescote vs. De Forest, 16 Johnson, 159. But a more practical reason will be found in the circumstance, that if allowed, th^ landlord might be deprived of the means of distress. If the lessee may distrain, so may the sub-lessee on his lessee, and so on, ad infinitum, and thus the tenant in ■ possession be subjected to infinite distress. ,,

Motioii dismissed.

O’Neall and Harper, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 S.C.L. 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragsdale-v-estis-scctapp-1832.