Allegaert v. Smart

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Allegaert v. Smart

2 Pennyp. 320

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 30, 1882

DocketNo. 83

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Pennyp. 320 (Allegaert v. Smart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allegaert v. Smart, 2 Pennyp. 320 (Pa. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

— Per Curiam:

The charge in the matters .complained of and the rejection of the evidence offered were entirely right. The breach of the covenant by the landlord was certainly no forfeiture of the right to the rent. Nor could the damages be set off in replevin. The only effect, according to Fairman v. Fluck, 5 Watts, 516; Warner v. Caulk, 3 Whart., 193; and Prescott v. Otterstatter, 29 P. F. Smith, 462, was, that there should be a reduction of the amount of the rent, proportioned over the whole period of the lease.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Per Curiam:

The charge in the matters .complained of and the rejection of the evidence offered were entirely right. The breach of the covenant by the landlord was certainly no forfeiture of the right to the rent. Nor could the damages be set off in replevin. The only effect, according to Fairman v. Fluck, 5 Watts, 516; Warner v. Caulk, 3 Whart., 193; and Prescott v. Otterstatter, 29 P. F. Smith, 462, was, that there should be a reduction of the amount of the rent, proportioned over the whole period of the lease.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pennyp. 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allegaert-v-smart-pa-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack