In later Maryland cases there have appeared general statements that a distraining landlord may seize and sell any and all chattels not exempt under a statute, found upon demised premises, for payment of rent, whether they belong to others or not. Kennedy v. Lange, 50 Md. 91 (1878); Mears v. Perine, 156 Md. 56, 143 A. 591, 62 A.L.R. 1100 (1928); Wilhem v. Boyd, 172 Md. 79, 190 A. 823 (1937); J. Holland Sons, Inc. v. Ettleman, 225 Md. 84, 169 A.2d 394 (1961). It should be noted, however, that in none of those cases had the goods distrained upon been left with the tenant by another in the course of the tenant's ordinary business.

The appellant contends that it is protected by the terms of Code (1957), Art. 21, § 66, which in broad terms protects the rights of conditional vendors. The difficulty is however, that Code (1957), Art. 53, § 18, expressly protects the rights of conditional vendors under Art. 21, § 66, against a landlord's distraint, but the proviso contains the language "except in Prince George's County". The cases make it clear that a distraining landlord may seize and sell any and all chattels not exempt under a statute, found upon demised premises, for payment of rent, whether they belong to others or not. Wilhem v. Boyd, 172 Md. 79; Mears v. Perine, 156 Md. 56, 62, and cases cited. We must read the two statutes together.