Hutchinson v. Potter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Certiorari to two aldermen of the city of Pittsburgh, acting under the landlord and tenant act. Sept 12. This was a proceeding, instituted before two aider-men by Daniel Potter, complainant, to recover possession of certain premises in Pittsburgh, under the act of 21st March, 1772. On the 21st February, 1848, Potter leased the premises to Hutchinson for one year, from 1st April ensuing, Hutchinson covenanting that “ at the end of said term, he will give up quiet and…
Read the full summary
Certiorari to two aldermen of the city of Pittsburgh, acting under the landlord and tenant act. Sept 12. This was a proceeding, instituted before two aider-men by Daniel Potter, complainant, to recover possession of certain premises in Pittsburgh, under the act of 21st March, 1772. On the 21st February, 1848, Potter leased the premises to Hutchinson for one year, from 1st April ensuing, Hutchinson covenanting that “ at the end of said term, he will give up quiet and peaceable possession of the same, in as good order, &e., and without further notice.” At the expiration of the term of one year,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of this court was delivered by
Burnside, J.
If the inquest had found, as they ought to have done, under the written lease that the defendant was to give up quiet and peaceable possession of the premises loithout further notice, there would have been nothing in the exceptions. The finding would have been legal. But this fact not being found, it is impossible to support this proceeding, as § 12, act 21st March, 1772, Dunlop’s Dig. 73, expressly requires that the demand had been made of the lessee or other person in possession to leave the premises three months before the application.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shafer v. CascioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Galizia v. Tardino, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1954
- Sizer v. RussettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899