Cal. Civ. Code § 89-7-105
Replication in case rent not due.
Operative Text
If the avowry be a claim for rent or supplies, or both, to become due, the plaintiff shall reply either that he was not indebted, as in the form last above, or he may reply in substance as in the following form, viz.: “Thomas East v. Circuit court, County. William West. “And the plaintiff, for replication, says that the defendant did not have just cause to suspect and verily believe that the plaintiff would remove his effects, or some part of the agricultural products raised thereon, from the leased premises before the expiration of his term or before the said debt would become due, so that distress could not be made; and of this plaintiff puts himself upon the country.” The plaintiff may, in proper case, unite the said replications, or he may reply any other facts constituting a legal answer. And on the trial of an issue on an avowry, the burden of proof shall be on the avowant, the landlord, and he shall have the right to open and conclude the argument. History Codes, 1892, § 2526; 1906, § 2864; Hemingway’s 1917, § 2362; 1930, § 2213; 1942, § 935.
Mississippi Code § 89-7-105 governs the procedural rules that apply when a landlord's distress claim (an 'avowry') involves rent or supplies not yet due at the time of the action. Under this provision, a tenant-plaintiff may respond by denying the debt or by asserting that the landlord lacked sufficient cause to believe the tenant would remove property from the leased premises before the debt came due. The statute also establishes that in any trial on such an avowry, the burden of proof rests with the landlord, who also holds the right to open and close argument.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under Miss. Code Ann. § 89-7-105, a landlord who pursues a distress action based on rent or supplies not yet due bears the burden of proving the claim at trial, including demonstrating that there was just cause to believe the tenant would remove effects or agricultural products before the debt matured. Compliant operators in such proceedings generally ensure they have documented, credible grounds for that belief before initiating a distress action. Because the landlord also holds the right to open and conclude argument at trial, understanding the procedural posture of this type of proceeding is an important part of managing such a claim.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Miss. Code Ann. § 89-7-105 provides tenants with recognized procedural defenses when a landlord brings a distress action for rent or supplies not yet due. A tenant may reply by denying the underlying debt or by asserting that the landlord lacked just cause to believe property would be removed before the debt became due — and the statute places the burden of proof squarely on the landlord to establish the avowry. Tenants facing such proceedings may benefit from consulting a tenant-rights organization or legal aid provider familiar with Mississippi landlord-tenant law to understand which available replications may apply to their circumstances.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 30, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.