Koontz v. Hammond
| Decision Date | 06 July 1869 |
| Citation | 62 Pa. 177 |
| Parties | Koontz <I>versus</I> Hammond. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county: No. 36, to May Term 1868.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
W. M. Hall and J. Cessna, for plaintiff in error.—Where a lessee has accepted a lease by mistake, it is an exception to the rule that he cannot impeach his landlord's title: Baskin v. Sechrist, 6 Barr 163.
G. H. Spang and S. L. Russell, for defendant in error.—The agreement with plaintiff was a lease: Moore v. Miller, 8 Barr 272. The Act of 1863 (supra) has not the provision contained in the 13th section of Act of March 21st 1772, 1 Sm. L. 374, Purd. 614, pl. 19. The lease to Koontz was after the conveyance from Hammond: Steel v. Thompson, 3 Penna. R. 37; Essler v. Johnson, 1 Casey 350; Snyder v. Carfrey, 4 P. F. Smith 90. The sale of the sheriff did not divest the plaintiff's life estate: Kintz v. Long, 6 Casey 501. The action of the court as to the verdict was right: Walters v. Junkins, 16 S. & R. 414; Ramage v. Peterman, 1 Casey 349; Reitenbaugh v. Ludwick, 7 Id. 131.
The opinion of the court was delivered, July 6th 1869, by SHARSWOOD, J.
Neither the first section of the Act of March 20th 1810 (5 Sm. L. 161) which excepts from the jurisdiction conferred upon justices of the peace of all causes of action arising from contract not above one hundred dollars "cases of real contract, where the title to lands or tenements may come in question," nor the thirteenth section of the Act of March 21st 1772 (1 Sm. L. 374) have any bearing whatever upon the question of proceedings under the Act of December 14th 1863 (Pamph. L. 1864, Appendix p. 1125). Under the Act of 1772 it is only when the tenant shall allege that the title is claimed by some person in virtue of a right accrued since the commencement of the lease by descent, deed, or from or under the last will of the lessor, that the process before the two justices is arrested and the contention removed to court: Cunningham v. Gardner, 4 W. & S. 120. There is no such provision in the Act of 1863: Heritage v. Wilfong, decided by this court, March 2d 1868 (8 P. F. Smith 139). The only remedy provided for the tenant is that of appeal generally. Such appeal is not, indeed, a supersedeas of execution, but it is enacted that if on the appeal "the jury shall find in favor of the tenant they shall also assess the damages which he shall have sustained by reason of his removal from the premises."
This case was in the Court of Common Pleas, by appeal, under the Act of 1863, where by the requirement of the law it was to be tried in the same manner as an action of ejectment. The foundation of the jurisdiction, indeed, was the existence of a tenancy. It was necessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendant was her tenant, to whom she had leased or demised the premises; otherwise no exhibition of title or right of possession in her, however incontrovertible, would have authorized a verdict in her favor. It was competent, however, for the tenant, before the justice or in court on the appeal, to set up any defence of which a tenant can avail himself in an ejectment by his lessor. He might have shown that the title of the plaintiff had come to an end by expiration, by her own act, or been divested by act of law: Newell v. Gibbs, 1 W. & S. 496. Of course he might have proved that he had been induced to accept the lease by fraud or misrepresentation — for that would have been to show that there was no tenancy, which alone, as we have seen, would have been fatal to the plaintiff's recovery in this proceeding, without going on to controvert the plaintiff's title, or show a better one in himself or outstanding in another, as in an ordinary ejectment: Boyer v. Smith, 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S & R, Inc. v. Nails
...was directed to resume deliberation, and the proposed discharge of the jury was never recorded. It was held in the case of Koontz v. Hammond, 62 Pa. 177 [ (1869) ] that, although the jury had been ordered discharged, they could still render a verdict if they had not separated or left the co......
-
Nails v. S & R, Inc.
...jury room. In upholding the trial judge's action, this Court stated (213 Md. at 419, 132 A. at 472): "It was held in the case of Koontz v. Hammond, 62 Pa. 177, that, although the jury had been ordered discharged, they could still render a verdict as they had not separated or left the court ......
-
Hoffert v. State
...Court sustained the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to resume its deliberations. We stated: It was held in the case of Koontz v. Hammond, 62 Pa. 177, that, although the jury had been ordered discharged, they could still render a verdict as they had not separated or left the court r......
-
Ager v. Baltimore Transit Co.
...jury was directed to resume deliberation, and the proposed discharge of the jury was never recorded. It was held in the case of Koontz v. Hammond, 62 Pa. 177, that, although the jury had been ordered discharged, they could still render a verdict as they had not separated or left the court r......