Mitchell v. Coates
Decision Date | 01 February 1864 |
Citation | 47 Pa. 202 |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Parties | Mitchell <I>versus</I> Coates. |
Mitchell gave his notes for the rent in arrear, and afterwards gave a judgment-note in lieu of them. None of the notes contained any waiver of the exemption. The court below were of opinion that the clause in the lease attached to the debt, and not to the property subject to distress, and, therefore, held that the choses in action attached in execution were not the subject of exemption.
In this we think there was error, the question being purely one of interpretation of the language of the covenant. The whole of this portion of the lease must be taken together. Its purpose was to make the rent secure upon the personal property liable to distress, but not to waive the debtor's right in other respects. He therefore agreed, "that all the personal property on the premises shall be liable to distress," "and also all personal property, if removed therefrom, shall for thirty days after such removal be liable to distress, and may be distrained and sold for rent in arrear;" the next clause is a continuation of the same sentence, participial in form of expression, and having reference clearly to the preceding clause. It does not begin a new and independent covenant, but merely concludes and strengthens the former by waiving the Exemption Law, as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Truby
...C. Golden, with him H.L. Golden, for appellant. -- In the case of Schock v. Waidelich, 27 Pa.Super. 215, and also in the case of Mitchell v. Coates, 47 Pa. 202, it is clearly pointed out that there is a distinction a distress for rent, and an execution for rent. In these cases, it is shown,......
-
Dersheimer v. Maloney
...and Benedict v. Hood, 134 Pa. 289, upon the terms of the contract in the case at bar, counsel cited: O'Nail v. Craig, 56 Pa. 161; Mitchell v. Coates, 47 Pa. 202; O'Conner v. Warner, 4 W. & S. 225; Savoy Jones, 2 R. 343; Hershey v. Shenk, 58 Pa. 385; Hunter v. Lanning, 76 Pa. 25; Murphy v. M......
-
Acme Machine Co. v. Hinkley
...can be taken under a distress but tangible property capable of seizure and sale. Therefore chases in action cannot be taken. Mitchell v. Coates, 47 Pa. 202. “Hence it follows that unless personal property is of that character and so situated that actual possession thereof can be taken, or t......
-
Acme Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Hinkley
...can be taken under a distress but tangible property capable of seizure and sale. Therefore choses in action cannot be taken. Mitchell v. Coates, 47 Pa. 202. "Hence follows that unless personal property is of that character and so situated that actual possession thereof can be taken, or ther......