Fullerton v. Shauffer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Fayette. In April, 1841, Henry Shauffer demised certain real estate “ for the season” to the defendant. In the lease it was.recited that defendant had become bail for the lessor in a certain obligation, and it was declared that the rent (which was payable in corn, &c.) should be by the lessor retained and applied to the payment of that debt, so far as it would extend.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Fayette. In April, 1841, Henry Shauffer demised certain real estate “ for the season” to the defendant. In the lease it was.recited that defendant had become bail for the lessor in a certain obligation, and it was declared that the rent (which was payable in corn, &c.) should be by the lessor retained and applied to the payment of that debt, so far as it would extend. In August, the plaintiffs became the purchasers at sheriff’s sale of the lessor’s estate, and a deed was delivered September 8th. They afterwards brought suit for the lessor’s share of the crop.…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
By the 119th section of the Act of the 16th June, 1836, relative to executions, the purchaser is declared to be the landlord after the sheriff acknowledges and delivers his deed, and he has the like remedy to recover any rents accruing out of the premises; and the 120th section provides that after notice to the tenant, he has a right to recover any rent accruing subsequently to the acknowledgment of the deed: Dunl. 831-2. Was there any rent accruing from the defendant to his landlord subsequent to the sale ? [His Honour here stated the case.] It is ruled in the case of the Bank v. Ege, 7…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Culloch v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
3Cited by1 opinion
- First National Bank v. MaxeyArizona Supreme Court · 1928