Boyd v. McCombs

• Citation: 4 Pa. 146
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decision Date: 07 November 1846
• Parties: BOYD <I>v.</I> McCOMBS.

4 Pa. 146

BOYD v. McCOMBS.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 28, 1846.

November 7, 1846.

Oct. 28.

IN error from the Common Pleas of Fayette county.

Howell and Dunlop, for plaintiff in error, after arguing the question as to the right of action, contended, that the purchaser was bound to give notice of the affirmance of the lease. 9 Watts, 436; 5 Watts & Serg. 432.

Veech, contrà.—Unless the purchaser disaffirm, he is entitled by the express words of the act of Assembly, to the rent accruing after his deed, which was plainly the case here. Braddee v. Wiley, 10 Watts, 362. But in this case, the tenant united the character of landlord, by his purchase from the sheriff's vendee, before the rent accrued, so that notice was out of the question.

Nov. 7. COULTER, J.

It is important to determine when the rent payable by McCombs to Boyd became due. The lease dated the 2d of July, 1841, does not indicate in terms when the rent shall be due and payable; but contains a general stipulation that the rent shall be one-half of all the grain raised, to be delivered in the bushel in Robert Boyd's mill. The rent commenced on the 1st of April, 1842. A tenant, in the absence of any specific time fixed by the lease for threshing his grain, may select his own time during the year. Rent is defined to be a certain profit issuing yearly out of lands; and is a return to the landlord for their annual use. As the winter season is the most usual period for threshing grain or shelling corn, the tenant could not, according to the common custom, pay his rent in kind until that period of the year was well advanced. But as there was no covenant to pay at any particular time, the end of the year is the period which the law assigns for the annual reditus to the landlord. Menough's Appeal, 5 Watts & Serg. 432.

(His honour here stated the order, sheriff's sale, the conveyances and the action.) The rent not being due till the end of the year, which would be the 1st of April, 1843, the question is raised, whether the plaintiff below, who is the plaintiff in error, is entitled to recover by virtue of the order from the landlord William Boyd, and accepted by the tenant; or whether the purchaser at the sheriff's sale was entitled to the landlord's share of the grain as rent.

The one hundred and nineteenth section of the act of Assembly, of the 16th of June, 1836, enables the purchaser at sheriff's sale, who receives a deed, to take all the rent which accrues or falls due after the...