Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Murphy

Mississippi Supreme Court November 15, 1906

Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Murphy, 89 Miss. 264 (Miss. 1906)

42 So. 288

Whitfield

Opinion of the Court

Whitfield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Chapter 52, pp. 44, 45, Laws 1894, has already, in Gardiner v. Tebault, No. 12,062 (not reported),* been construed by us as not subjecting the property of third persons on leased premises to liability for rent. There was no warehouseman’s lien in this case, and no implied lien as against the mortgagee, who was not the owner of the property. The facts in the case of Schneider v. Dayton, 111 Mich., 396 (69 N. W. Rep., 829), make that a very different case from this.

Reversed and remanded.

Affirmed without written opinion.

Reference

Full Case Name: Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company v. Hiram P. Murphy
Cited By: 6 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Landlord and Tenant. Lien. Mortgaged property. Laws 1894, oh. 52, p. 44. Process. ’ A landlord has no lien or claim for rent, as against the mortgagee, upon property mortgaged by the tenant and subsequently brought upon the leased premises; and payment or tender of unpaid rent , is not a condition precedent to a seizure of the property for enforcement of the mortgage, under Laws' 1894, cb. 52, p. 44, providing that chattels on leased tenements shall not be liable to be taken under process unless upon payment or tender- of unpaid rent. 2. Same. Warehouseman’s lien. A landlord does not acquire a warehouseman’s lien for rent of premises by notifying a mortgagee of property placed therein by his tenant, the mortgagor, that the mortgagor has abandoned his lease and the property and that he will hold the mortgagee for rent until the removal of the property.