We have already spoken of the right of re-entry, which only prevents the accruing of further rent. For rents due and unpaid the common law provided what Chancellor Kent calls the " summary and somewhat perilous authority of distress." This word is derived through the secondary form " distrein," from the law-latin verb "distringo." The power of distress, under the feudal law, was simply the power to take all the personal property or chattels of the tenant on the premises, and hold them as security for the unpaid rent. What it was, in its exercise, may be inferred from the fact, that this law word came, in course of time, to be used as an expression of the extremest suffering. In Massachusetts and the New England States generally, in New York since 1846, and in many of the other States, the lessor has no power of distress, and no other remedy for rent due, than the same actions of covenant, debt, or assumpsit for use and occupation, (t) and the same attachment he would have for other debts. In others of the States, (u)1 it is retained, but greatly and variously modified. Nor would it be possible for us to give a detailed view of the various provisions which exist in relation to this power, except by reference to the State statutes. We will, however, endeavor to exhibit such more general rules on the subject as seem to rest on adjudication.

(o) Crosby v. Loop, 13 Ill. 625, Van Rensselaer v. Gallup, 5 Denio, 454 , Reed v. Ward", 22 Pa. St. 144.

(p) 1 Roll. Alir tit. Apportionment, D. pl. 3, 4, 5; Wotton v. Shirt. Cro. E. 742.

(q) Smith v. Raleigh, 3 Camp. 513; Brigfjs v Hall, 4 Leigh, 4S4. See Mayor v Thomas, 10 Q. B. D. 48, Fillebrown v.

Hoar, 124 Mass. 580; Tunis v. Grandy, 22 Gratt. 109.

(r) 11 Geo. II. ch. 19, § 15, and 4 Wm. IV. ch. 22.

(s) Gheen v. Oflbom, 17 S. & R. 171; Ex parte Smyth, 1 Swanst. 338; New York Rev. Statutes.

Originally, the lessor might enter upon the premises and distrain any chattels he might find there; but now, and in this * country generally, distress may be made only on the goods of the tenant. (v)

The distress must be reasonable in amount, and the property distrained cannot be carried out of the county; and the distress must not be made at night. (w)

(t) For cases on the action of assumpsit for rent, see Hall v. Southmayd, 15 Barb. 32, Scales v. Anderson, 26 Miss. 94; Greenup v. Vernon, 16 Ill. 26 , Newby v. Vestal, 6 Port. (Ind.) 412; Long v. Bonner, 11 Ired. L. 27; Smith v. Wooding, 20 Ala. 324; Weaver v. Jones, 24 Ala. 420.

(u) New Jersey, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and perhaps some others.

(v) Hoskins v. Paul, 4 Halst. 110; Stone v. Matthews, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 429; Brown v. Sims, 17 S. & R. 133; Young-blood v. Lowry, 2 McCord, 39; Riddle v. Welden, 5 Whart. 1.

1 A landlord has a lien on the crop for rent and on the tenant's personal property, the former of which he may follow into hands of a purchaser or attaching creditor, Prettymanv. Unland, 77 Ill. 206; Mead v. Thompson, 78 Ill. 62; but not the latter, Hadden v. Knickerbocker, 70 Ill. 677; Morgan v. Campbell, 22 Wall. 381. - There can be no distress unless the rent is fixed, or capable of being fixed, as by arbitration, Myers v. Mayfield, 7 Bush, 212; or in proportionate profits of thing let, Wilkins v. Taliaferro, 52 Ga. 208; or proportioned to lessor's improvements, Detwiler v. Cox, 75 Penn. St. 200. An undisclosed principal of an agent, letting in his own name, cannot distrain. Seyfert v. Bean, 83 Penn. St. 450. The mere taking a note for rent will not prevent distraining, unless so agreed. Atkyns v Byrnes, 71 Ill 326. Astipulation in a lease giving landlord " lien " will prevail over a purchaser, attaching creditor, assignee in bankruptcy, mechanic's lien, and follow goods though removed from the premises. Hale v. Omaha Bank, 49 N. Y. 626; Groton Co. v. Gardner, 11 R. I. 626; Dalton v. Laudahn, 27 Mich. 529, McCaffrey v. Woodin, 65 N. Y. 459; Schenley's Appeal, 70 Penn. St. 98. After distress and before sale, a landlord cannot sue for rent. Lehain v. Philpott, L. R. 10 Ex. 242. In Illinois, a tenant may recover damages resulting from the impairment in value of the use of the premises by the landlord's act. Lynch v. Baldwin, 69 Ill. 210. - K.

Implements and beasts of husbandry, tools of trade, household goods to a certain amount, and a great variety of things, deemed by the several legislatures essential to the subsistence or comfort of a family, are exempted from distress, or attachment, or levy by the several State statutes.

The goods may be replevied by the owner, at any time within a certain number of days, and the question of indebtedness, or any other which affects the right of distress, may be tried; but if not replevied, they may be sold, and the proceeds applied to the payment of the rent due.

The landlord is punishable for unlawful distress, by double damages, or otherwise; and the tenant, for unlawful rescue of the goods or prevention of distress, by treble damages, or otherwise.

The landlord's power of distress does not extend to goods sold in good faith and for a valuable consideration before the seizure; (x) nor to goods in the custody of the law;(y) but it has been held in New York, that goods mortgaged by the tenant, even if taken possession of by the mortgagee, and removed from the premises, may be followed by the landlord, and be distrained upon. (z) And the distinction has been taken, that while the goods of an assignee of the tenant are liable to distress for rent, those of a mere under-tenant are not so liable. (a) But the process of distress has been abolished in New York. (b)

(w) Sherman v. Dutch, 16 Ill. 283.

(x) Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, Dana, 205; Neale v. Clautice, 7 Har. J. 372.

(y) Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, Dana, 205.

(z) Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cowen, 2 323 & (a) Acher v. Witherell, 4 Hill (N. V.),

112. 2 (b) Gen. St. p. 429. And this law has been held to be constitutional Guild v.

Rogers, 8 Barb. 502.