City of Philadelphia v. Hood
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 141, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from order of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Nov. T., 1895, No. 375, making absolute rule for pluries writ of h. f. p. with fi. fa. for costs. Petition for pluries writ of h. f. p. Before Pershing, P. J. On November 6, 1895, an amicable action of ejectment filed; ■judgment entered and a hab. fac. issued and writ stayed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 141, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from order of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Nov. T., 1895, No. 375, making absolute rule for pluries writ of h. f. p. with fi. fa. for costs. Petition for pluries writ of h. f. p. Before Pershing, P. J. On November 6, 1895, an amicable action of ejectment filed; ■judgment entered and a hab. fac. issued and writ stayed. Subsequently an alias hab. fac. issued on which delivery of possession of the premises on November 21, 1895. Defendant subsequently re-entered and took possession of the premises, and forcibly retained possession of the same. Whereupon…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The plaintiff having obtained a judgment against the defendant in an action of ejectment, recovered possession of the premises under an alias habere facias possessionem, on November 30, 1895. In the latter part of April, 1896, the defendant, without the permission or knowledge of the plaintiff’s representatives, retook possession of the land, and has since claimed the right to retain it as lessee of Elizabeth Kloch under a lease dated April 28, 1896. On June 15, 1896, a petition on behalf of the plaintiff was presented to the court of common pleas of Schuylkill county,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Marko v. MendelowskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Noyes v. BrooksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899