Legal Opinion

Clay v. Iseminger

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 21, 1898No. Appeal, No. 63PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal, No. 63, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1896, No. 240, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for ground rent. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Craig Biddle, P. J. The averments of the affidavit of defense are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 63, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1896, No. 240, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for ground rent. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Craig Biddle, P. J. The averments of the affidavit of defense are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment. Section 7 of the act of April 27, 1855, does not apply to rents reserved before its passage, because such application would impair the contract:…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

The action was to recover arrears of ground rent reserved by deed dated January 4,1854. In the affidavit of defense it was averred that no payment, claim or demand for the rent had been made by anyone for more than twenty-one years, and that within that period of time no declaration or acknowledgment of the existence of the rent had been made by anyone owning the premises. This brings the case directly within the provisions of the 7th section of the Act of April 27,1855, P. L. 369, and the questions raised relate to the constitutionality of that section and to its…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Korn v. BrowneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
  2. Wallace v. Fourth U. P. ChurchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  3. Biddle v. HoovenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
  2. DeJoseph v. Standard Steel Car Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Osborne v. LindstromNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Wooster v. BatemanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
  5. Myers v. LohrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API