Hood v. Drysdale
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No.- 210, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1904, No. 5471, discharging rule to open judgment in case of William H. Hood, Agent, v. Alexander B. Drysdale. Rule to open judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No.- 210, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1904, No. 5471, discharging rule to open judgment in case of William H. Hood, Agent, v. Alexander B. Drysdale. Rule to open judgment. Davis, J., filed the following opinion : Davis, J. The plaintiff commenced an amicable action in ejectment under and by virtue of a certain agreement of lease, entered judgment, and issued a habere facias for the recovery of the possession of the premises described therein. By said agreement plaintiff leased to defendant the premises, No. 100 Sterner street, for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The facts of this case are concisely and accurately stated in the opinion filed by the learned judge below, and little can be added profitably to his discussion of the legal question involved. It is argued in opposition to his views and conclusion that the tenancy as it existed after the tenant held over was distinctly described in the lease itself as a tenancy at sufferance ; that this was an erroneous description of the relation, because this sort of tenancy cannot arise by contract, either expressed or implied; therefore the parties must be deemed to have contemplated…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hollis v. BurnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mercer County Agriculture Society v. BarnhardtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Stapleton v. HortonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Robinson v. KuhenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924