Ashhurst v. Eastern Pennsylvania Phonograph Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 203, July T., 1894, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 177, discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit for rent.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 203, July T., 1894, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 177, discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit for rent. From the record it appeared that, on May 12, 1891, defendant took a lease from plaintiff’s agent, the material portions of which were as follows : “ This agreement witnesseth that J. M. Gummey & Sons, agents for the estate of Richard Ashhurst, deceased, do hereby let unto the Eastern Pennsylvania Phonograph Company the first floor and basement of the property situate No. 16 South Third…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bx
Mb.. Justice'McCollum,
Does the affidavit contain a good defence to the action? ■ The. *359answer to this question depends entirely upon the construction of the lease, because the portion of the affidavit which relates to the surrender of the demised premises is clearly insufficient' to prevent judgment. An averment of the surrender is unavailing without the further averment of an acceptance of it by the lessor: Teller v. Boyle, 132 Pa. 56. The real question therefore is whether the provision in the lease in regard to notice of an intention to determine the tenancy applies to each year…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Teller v. BoyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lipper v. Bouvé, Crawford & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- General Tire & Rubber Co. v. General Tire & Sales Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Commissioner v. Philadelphia Coke Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- Baxter v. MaullSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Stiles v. HimmelwrightSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.