Wills v. Gibson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Allegheny. Nov. 8.. This was a scire facias to December Term, 1845, by the administrators of Wills, to revive a judgment for arrearages of ground-rent against the original defendant, with notice to the present terre-tenant. Culbert, the terre-tenant, pleaded that the judgment was not a lien, and secondly, that she was a purchaser for valuable consideration, and the judgment was no lien.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Allegheny. Nov. 8.. This was a scire facias to December Term, 1845, by the administrators of Wills, to revive a judgment for arrearages of ground-rent against the original defendant, with notice to the present terre-tenant. Culbert, the terre-tenant, pleaded that the judgment was not a lien, and secondly, that she was a purchaser for valuable consideration, and the judgment was no lien. It appeared that, in 1823, the administrators of Wills brought covenant for rent against James Gibson, assignee of John Gibson, who was the grantee of Wills, on ground-rent by…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
The points of defence taken by the *156terre-tenant, who is the substantial party, were payment of the judgment and expiration of its lien. As to the latter, it is enough that the lien arose, not from the judgment for the arrears, but from the ground-rent deed; and, consequently, that it was not subject to the provisions of the act of 1798. A judgment for such arrears, like a judgment against an administrator, creates no new lien; but the lien of a ground-rent, unlike the lien of the intestate laws, is not limited in its duration by positive enactment: and the terre-tenant was consequently thrown…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Apollo Borough v. ClepperSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Philadelphia v. NellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Roemer, to Use v. Lancaster Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936