151 So. 740 | Miss. | 1934
The sole question in this case is whether, in an insolvent estate, the amount due to a landlord for the rent of a store building occupied by the decedent prior to his death is to be preferred, in the distribution of the estate, over claims for the expenses of the last sickness, for the funeral and for the administration, the administrator having taken over the goods of the decedent in the store building and having sold them all under order of the court.
Appellant, the landlord, relies upon section 2175, Code 1930, which provides that the goods and chattels in rented premises shall not be taken under execution or other process unless all unpaid rent shall first be paid to the *492
landlord; and upon Epstein v. Farr,
If section 2175, Code 1930, gave a specific lien upon the goods and chattels in the leased building, equivalent, for instance, to that of a valid mortgage lien on that specific property, it may be conceded for the sake of the argument that the position of appellant landlord would be maintainable; but in White v. Miazza-Woods Const. Co.,
The rent due to a landlord for a store from which the administrator has removed or sold the goods is a claim superior in rank to that of general creditors, but is inferior to that to be allowed for the expenses of the last illness, funeral, and administration.
Affirmed. *493