Philadelphia v. Wellens
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 223, Oct. T., 1901, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1893, M. L. D., No. 675, discharging rule to withdraw money from court in case of Philadelphia v. Jules Wellens, Owner, etc., and Jules Wellens, Wesley Stead and Theodore F. Miller, Reputed Owner. Rule to show cause why the prothonotary should not pay back to the owner the amount of a municipal lien paid into court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 223, Oct. T., 1901, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1893, M. L. D., No. 675, discharging rule to withdraw money from court in case of Philadelphia v. Jules Wellens, Owner, etc., and Jules Wellens, Wesley Stead and Theodore F. Miller, Reputed Owner. Rule to show cause why the prothonotary should not pay back to the owner the amount of a municipal lien paid into court. From the record it appeared that the defendant claimed a right to repayment because the city had failed to- issue a sci. fa. on the lien within five years from its filing. The court…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Pouter, J.,
The defendant, having a lien for a municipal claim of record against his property, on June 28, 1898, availed himself of. the right to discharge the lien by payment of money into- court under the Act of February 21, 1862, P. L. 44, which provides that, “ Any person entitled to take defense to said claim may, at any time after the same is filed, pay into court the amount thereof with a sum sufficient to cover interest and costs, to abide the event of any proceedings thereon, and thereupon said claim shall cease to be a lien upon any land, and shall be stricken…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Philadelphia v. MerzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905