Hellings v. Wright

• Decision Date: 01 January 1853
• Citation: 14 Pa. 373
• Parties: Hellings versus Wright.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

14 Pa. 373

Hellings versus Wright.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Bucks county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

The case was argued by E. J. Fox and Roberts, for plaintiff in error; and by Ross, for defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by COULTER, J.

The sheriff's deed conveyed to Wright all the title of Osmond, who, it appears, and the fact is not disputed, was the owner of the land, and the grain growing on the land at the time of the sale and acknowledgment of the deed, unless it had been sown by a tenant under a lease from Osmond. The grain, it seems, was sown by Hellings, who went on the land after Osmond left it, without his permission or any privity whatever between them. If he had been the tenant of Osmond, Wright would have occupied the place of the landlord in virtue of the sale. Wright, supposing that Hellings was the tenant of Osmond, issued a landlord's warrant and levied on the grain. Hellings issued a writ of replevin, and to the avowry of Wright he replied non tenuit, &c. On the trial, and after Hellings had closed his case, Wright, by permission of the court, and before the witnesses were discharged, added the plea of property; and this is assigned as the first error. But there was no error in it. Amendments in the pleadings are allowable at any time during the trial, if the ends of justice will thereby be promoted; the determination of which contingency must be left, in a great measure, to the discretion of the court trying the cause. If either party is taken by surprise by such amendment, he is entitled to a continuance of the cause; and if Hellings had asked for a continuance, the court would no doubt have granted it. As he did not choose to take that course, he must abide by the amendment.

It is very clear that Wright could not recover on his avowry for rent in arrear, because the facts in evidence show that there was no tenancy, but that Hellings entered without leave or license from anybody, and, of course, as a mere trespasser and intruder. But he contends now that Wright was bound by his election to treat him as a tenant, and that he cannot now treat him in any other character. But Hellings denied on record that he was a tenant and by the evidence he adduced. He made his election therefore, as well as Wright. Hellings denied the tenancy, which was fully made out by the evidence; and Wright takes him at his word; what right therefore has he to complain? If he was not a tenant, the...