298 SALE OF FArvMIXG STOCK TAKEN IN EXECUTION. 



the excess consists Avliolly in seizing growing crops, the probable pro- 

 duce of wliieli is capable of bciug estimated at the time of the seizure ; 

 but the measure of damages is not the value of the crops, but the incon- 

 venience and expense which the tenant sustains in being deprived of 

 the management of them, or which he is put to in procuring sureties to 

 a larger amount than he would otherwise have been in replevying the 

 crops {Fi//o/f V. Birflrs). 



In Mouiio V. Blalce the Court of Queen's Bench laid down that 

 " roplcvin is not mainfainahle, vnJess in a case in which there, lias been 

 /in<t a talcing out of the possession of the owner." If a mare in foal or a 

 cow in calf be distrained, and it brings forth while in the distrainor's 

 custody, replevin lies for the foal or calf (Bac. Ah. tit. Replevin) ; and if 

 animals yWvp nalarm have been reclaimed, as deer in a park, an action of 

 replevin will lie for them [Davies v. Powell). 



Section 11 of 56 Geo. III. c. 50, " to regulate the sale of farming stoclc 

 talcen in execution,'' enacts that no assignee of any bankrupt or insolvent 

 debtor's estate, or under any bill of sale, nor any purchaser of the goods, 

 chattels, stock or crop of any person employed in husbandry, on lands 

 let to farm, shall use or dispose of any produce or dressing of such land 

 in any other manner, and fur any other pur])ose, than such bankrupt, in- 

 solvent, or other person so employed in husbandry ought to have used 

 or disposed of the same if tliere had been no bankruptcy, assignment, or 

 sale made. The question in Wihnot Bart. v. Rose was whether this sec- 

 tion gave the plaintiff a right to prohibit the purchaser at an auction of 

 a tenant's cro}) of hay or straw on the farm, from carrying it off the farm 

 contrary to the terms of the lease. The Court held that it did give such 

 power, and w^as not confined to purchasers of what has been taken in 

 execution, and that the nonsuit was wrong. And ^^rv Lord Campbell 

 C.J. : " Ridgwag v. Lord Stafford is not an authority on the construc- 

 tion of this section; it was not brought before the Court." The Bank- 

 ruptcy Law Consolidation Act (12 & 13 Vi<(. c. lOG), which repeals 

 statute G Geo. IV. c. 1(5, and other statutes relating to bankruptcy, has 

 a similar enactment in section ]44. And see also Hull v. Morell on the 

 construction of this statute. 



Whether a landlord mag annex a condition that tlieg sliall be consumed 

 on the jjremises, to the sale of the hag and sfraa; of his tenant which he 

 seizes under a distress, has been the subject of much discussion. In 

 Abbeg v. Fetch the defendant having distrained the hay and straw on 

 the premises of the plaintiff", who held a farm under him, sold them 

 subject to a condition, that the purcliaser should consume them on the 

 premises ; the consequence of which was they produced less than if the 

 sale had been absolute. By the terms of this lease, the plaintiff was 



