M'Clure v. M'Clure
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the District Court of Allegheny county. The defendant here, but plaintiff below, brought an action of trespass on the case for the use and occupation of two undivided tenth parts of a tract of land. The declaration did not allege, nor did the plaintiff prove any contract but the implied one, arising between tenants in common, from the defendant below, having occupied the land of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error, to the District Court of Allegheny county. The defendant here, but plaintiff below, brought an action of trespass on the case for the use and occupation of two undivided tenth parts of a tract of land. The declaration did not allege, nor did the plaintiff prove any contract but the implied one, arising between tenants in common, from the defendant below, having occupied the land of plaintiff. The affidavit of plaintiff claims rent— April 1, 1846, to April 1, 1847, - - - $26.66 “ “ 1847, “ “ 1848, - - - 40.00 “ “ 1848, “ “ 1849, - - - 40.00 “ “ 1849, to Dec. 29,1849, - - - 30.00 $136.66…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion was delivered
2Per curiam
— This is not a case of mutual accounts between merchant and merchant, and therefore it was rightly held that all the items over six years old are barred by the statute. This relates to the defendant’s set-off. The plaintiff claimed for several years’ rent, and could of course recover for all rent falling due within six years before suit brought. True, this allows the plaintiff to recover for an occupation commencing nearly seven years before; and this is right, if there was an agreement for a rent payable annually; and this we must presume, from the defective state…
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bell's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Ledonne v. Commerce Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Stokes v. HatcherSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1818
- Executors of Newbold v. LambSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1819