Collins v. Emerick

W.D. Pennsylvania

Collins v. Emerick

94 F. Supp. 245, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2100

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 4, 1950

DocketCiv. No. 8256

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 F. Supp. 245 (Collins v. Emerick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collins v. Emerick, 94 F. Supp. 245, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2100 (W.D. Pa. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

BURNS, District Judge.

The instant motion to dismiss poses the question whether, under the law of Pennsylvania, a tenant in common gains a lien on the undivided interests of other tenants in common by paying the full amount of delinquent taxes. This question was .squarely answered in Re Lohr’s Estate, 1938, 132 Pa.Super. 125, 200 A. 135, where the court decided that no such lien arises. It was pointed out in the Lohr’s Estate opinion that the Pennsylvania statutes give a tenant in common ample opportunity to protect his own interest by paying merely .his share of the tax due; in paying the .shares of the taxes owed by the others, he “was a volunteer, and contribution was not .available to him under the facts in this ■case.” 125 Pa.Super. at page 129, 200 A. at page 136. Lohr’s Estate is still the law ■of Pennsylvania. See Patterson v. Warwick, 1949, 165 Pa.Super. 424, 430, 68 A. 2d 396, 399.

Plaintiff seeks to invoke the rule of Haverford Loan & Building Ass’n v. Fire Ass’n, 1897, 180 Pa. 522, 37 A. 179. That case, however, is distinguishable, in that the co-tenant in the Haverford Loan & Building Ass’n case believed himself to be sole owner at the time of payment, and consquently was not “an officious intermeddler.” See First National Bank of Ashley v. Reily, 1949, 165 Pa.Super. 168, 170, 67 A.2d 679, 680. No such allegation has been made by plaintiff in the case at bar.

It might be added parenthetically that the complaint and the “Resistance and Brief and Argument resisting Defendants [sic] Motion to Dismiss” papers filed by plaintiff, besides failing to conform to the rules of this court both in form and in substance, are discursive and repetitive. A comprehensive redrafting of the complaint would have been necessary, even if the legal position of plaintiff had been sound.

And now, December 4, 1950, the motions of defendants to dismiss the complaint are hereby granted.

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

BURNS, District Judge.

The instant motion to dismiss poses the question whether, under the law of Pennsylvania, a tenant in common gains a lien on the undivided interests of other tenants in common by paying the full amount of delinquent taxes. This question was .squarely answered in Re Lohr’s Estate, 1938, 132 Pa.Super. 125, 200 A. 135, where the court decided that no such lien arises. It was pointed out in the Lohr’s Estate opinion that the Pennsylvania statutes give a tenant in common ample opportunity to protect his own interest by paying merely .his share of the tax due; in paying the .shares of the taxes owed by the others, he “was a volunteer, and contribution was not .available to him under the facts in this ■case.” 125 Pa.Super. at page 129, 200 A. at page 136. Lohr’s Estate is still the law ■of Pennsylvania. See Patterson v. Warwick, 1949, 165 Pa.Super. 424, 430, 68 A. 2d 396, 399.

Plaintiff seeks to invoke the rule of Haverford Loan & Building Ass’n v. Fire Ass’n, 1897, 180 Pa. 522, 37 A. 179. That case, however, is distinguishable, in that the co-tenant in the Haverford Loan & Building Ass’n case believed himself to be sole owner at the time of payment, and consquently was not “an officious intermeddler.” See First National Bank of Ashley v. Reily, 1949, 165 Pa.Super. 168, 170, 67 A.2d 679, 680. No such allegation has been made by plaintiff in the case at bar.

It might be added parenthetically that the complaint and the “Resistance and Brief and Argument resisting Defendants [sic] Motion to Dismiss” papers filed by plaintiff, besides failing to conform to the rules of this court both in form and in substance, are discursive and repetitive. A comprehensive redrafting of the complaint would have been necessary, even if the legal position of plaintiff had been sound.

And now, December 4, 1950, the motions of defendants to dismiss the complaint are hereby granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F. Supp. 245, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-emerick-pawd-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack