Shaffer v. Sutton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
in ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Somerset county, in a proceeding between landlord and tenant, removed thither by certiorari, and the judgment in favour of the landlord, the defendant in error, affirmed.
Read the full summary
in ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Somerset county, in a proceeding between landlord and tenant, removed thither by certiorari, and the judgment in favour of the landlord, the defendant in error, affirmed. There were nine exceptions taken to the proceedings, by the plaintiff in error, only one of which is material: “ That “ it appeared from the face of the proceedings, that the lease “ alleged in Sutton’s bill of complaint, was not a term for one “ or more years, or at will, rendering a certain rent, in which “ cases alone the justices could have jurisdiction, and that…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
There were a variety of exceptions to the record in this case, most of which were overruled during the argument, being too plain to admit of much discussion. [The Chief Justice then stated and answered the immaterial exceptions.]
The sixth exception is the only one which requires consideration. The act of assembly speaks of leases for a term of years, in'some parts, and in others, leases for a term of one or more years. The recital in the twelfth section of the landlord and tenant law under which the process issued, is, “ whereas it “ frequently happens that lessees or tenants…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hollis v. BurnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Hoover, Rhodes & Co. v. Pacific Oil Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Davidson v. Ewing, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1947