Jacks v. Smith

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Jacks v. Smith

1 S.C.L. 315

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas·Decided May 15, 1793·Published

Opinion

The Court

(present, the Chief Justice, Burke, J. and Bay, J.)

were decidedly of opinion, that there.must be some lease, either written or parol, to justify a distress. Some sum certain must be reserved, for which the landlord can enter and seize the tenant’s goods in this summary me» thod. Though they thought an .action for use and occupation, would He against the .tenant., for the tipie he- held the-house after it was sold.

Vide the case of Smith v. The Sheriff of Charleston District, post.

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

The Court

(present, the Chief Justice, Burke, J. and Bay, J.)

were decidedly of opinion, that there.must be some lease, either written or parol, to justify a distress. Some sum certain must be reserved, for which the landlord can enter and seize the tenant’s goods in this summary me» thod. Though they thought an .action for use and occupation, would He against the .tenant., for the tipie he- held the-house after it was sold.

Vide the case of Smith v. The Sheriff of Charleston District, post.

Jacks v. Smith, 1 S.C.L. 315 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1793).

Pincite

1 S.C.L. 315 (Jacks v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.