Kelly v. Northrop
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 114, Jan. T., 1894, by Lydia A. Leisenring, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila Co.,Sept. T., 1893, No. 822, Kelly et ux. v. Northrop, making abso- , lute rule on sheriff to execute writ of habere possessionem. Buie on sheriff to execute writ of habere possessionem.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 114, Jan. T., 1894, by Lydia A. Leisenring, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila Co.,Sept. T., 1893, No. 822, Kelly et ux. v. Northrop, making abso- , lute rule on sheriff to execute writ of habere possessionem. Buie on sheriff to execute writ of habere possessionem. From the record it appeared that the rule was taken in an amicable action of ejectment with confession of judgment between George A. Kelly and wife and Frank Northrop, founded upon a lease dated Sept. 30, 1890. The lease contained an agreement for the entry of such amicable action and judgment after ten days’ notice of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We find no error in this record. Neither of the specifications is sustained.
' The order making absolute the plaintiff’s rule on the sheriff to show cause why he should not proceed to execute the writ of habere facias possessionem, etc., is affirmed, with costs to be paid by appellant.
2Cited by2 opinions
- McKinney v. RussellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Nehr v. KrewzbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898