Purdy's Appeal

• Decision Date: 01 April 1854
• Citation: 23 Pa. 97
• Parties: Purdy's Appeal.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

23 Pa. 97

Purdy's Appeal.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

APPEAL from the decree of the Common Pleas of Bucks county.

Lear, for the appellant.—An agreement to pay rent quarterly in advance, is not equivalent to an agreement that the rent is considered as being earned during the running of any quarter before the day of its payment. By the Act of 16th June, 1836, goods liable to distress shall be liable "for the payment of any sums of money due for rent at the time of taking such goods in execution." The construction that the growing rent may be apportioned till the time of levy, though the day of payment of it had not arrived, is not a decision when no rent is growing due and when the levy is made during a period for which the rent had been paid, that the landlord is entitled to rent for a future period out of the proceeds of sale. Iu Anderson's Appeal, the Court apportioned the rent in an unusual manner on the basis of a fiction, on account of the peculiar equity which the landlord had in that case, from the fact, that the profitable part of the season had nearly passed when the goods of the tenant were levied upon. But the rent had not been paid for that portion of the term when the levy took place, as it had been in this case.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by LOWRIE, J.

We think that the principle of Anderson's Appeal, 3 State R. 220, has been unduly extended in this case, and totally misapplied. Here the tenant had paid one quarter's rent in advance, and the rent for the rest of the year was to be paid quarterly in the same way. Before the expiration of the first quarter, the tenant's goods on the premises were seized by the sheriff on a fi. fa., and the landlord claims out of the proceeds an amount of rent proportioned to the part of the quarter which had expired, though that whole quarter's rent had been paid in full. He is not entitled to it; for it was not due, and there had been no enjoyment on which to found the allowance. To allow it would be to apportion the rent neither by the contract nor by the time of enjoyment, but in advance of both.

The decree of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed, at the costs of the appellee, Alfred M. Magill, and the money is decreed to be paid to Thomas C. Purdy, the appellant.