Hessel v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 8 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 184 July Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 669 March Term 1888, C. P. No. 3. On May 16,1888, upon an affidavit filed with a copy of a lease by Moses T. Johnson, agent for Horatio M. and Mary Bell Allen, to James P. Rossiter, dated January 22, 1886, demising a messuage and tenement at Tenth and Race streets, for the term of fifteen months from January 1,1886, and under the authority of a provision in…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 8 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 184 July Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 669 March Term 1888, C. P. No. 3. On May 16,1888, upon an affidavit filed with a copy of a lease by Moses T. Johnson, agent for Horatio M. and Mary Bell Allen, to James P. Rossiter, dated January 22, 1886, demising a messuage and tenement at Tenth and Race streets, for the term of fifteen months from January 1,1886, and under the authority of a provision in said lease, a judgment in ejectment for the demised premises was confessed in favor of “ Moses T. Johnson, agent for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mb. Justice Green:
In the case of Hessel v. Fritz, just decided, Hessel claimed title, not under the defendants in the judgment, but under a lease made by one Rossiter as agent for the owners anterior to the entry of the judgment. We there held that he was not bound by the judgment and was entitled to a hearing before being ejected. In the present case the facts are entirely different. The judgment in favor of the owners is against Rossiter and it is good against him and all who claim under him no matter in what capacity lie might assume to act in leasing the premises.
Hessel’s…