Jacks v. Smith

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Jacks v. Smith

1 S.C.L. 315

DecidedMay 15, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C.L. 315 (Jacks v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.C.L. 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacks-v-smith-pactcompl-1793.