Morgan v. Moody
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. William H. Morgan against David Moody. Case stated. Elijah Gleason, Jr., rented from the plaintiff the store and premises No. 279 Market Street, on the 10th October 1842 for the sum of $800 per annum, payable quarterly.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. William H. Morgan against David Moody. Case stated. Elijah Gleason, Jr., rented from the plaintiff the store and premises No. 279 Market Street, on the 10th October 1842 for the sum of $800 per annum, payable quarterly. On the 6th December 1842 the goods of Gleason on the premises, were removed therefrom by the defendant, by virtue of various attachments issued against Gleason by his creditors, under the provisions of the 27th and following sections of the Act passed July 12th 1842 entitled “an Act to abolish imprisonment…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
The landlord is entitled to payment of rent up to the day the goods are taken in execution, though it be in the middle of the quarter. West v. Sink, (2 Yeates 274); Binns v. Hudson, (5 Binn. 505). And in this respect the 83d section of the Act of 16th June 1836 on which this point arises, makes no change; so that the fact that the rent was not due cannot vary the case. The question is, whether where an attachment is issued and the goods are sold by the sheriff or constable .off the demised premises, the landlord is entitled to be paid…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Binns v. HudsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- West v. SinkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1798
3Cited by2 opinions
- Seitzinger v. SteinbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
- Wickey v. EysterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868