M'Conahy v. Kessler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

M'Conahy v. Kessler

3 Pen. & W. 467

DecidedJune 15, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pen. & W. 467 (M'Conahy v. Kessler) 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

M'Conahy v. Kessler, 3 Pen. & W. 467 (Pa. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The argumenton the only point which has been pressed,.is that a verdict for Kessler would preclude M’Conahy from baYing recourse to Boombaugh the tenant, who is therefore supposed to have such an interest in Kessler’s recovery as to disqualify him as a witness. Whatever might be the effect of a verdict on the plea of non demisit or of no rent in arriere, or of eviction by the landlord, it is certain that the alleged effect would not proceed from a verdict in favor of Kessler, on the plea of property in himself, and not in the tenant: The latter was called to prove, that he had sold the property to Kessler, and no more; and though that might, under the circumstances, have been immaterial, yet if the property were in fact discharged from the distress, for reasons which do not affect the existence of the rent, it is hard to conceive why it should exempt the tenant from a fresh proceeding. He was competent therefore to prove the issue of property which ¿id not affect the question of his liability to his landlord, and for $hat purpose, at all events, he was properly admitted.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The argumenton the only point which has been pressed,.is that a verdict for Kessler would preclude M’Conahy from baYing recourse to Boombaugh the tenant, who is therefore supposed to have such an interest in Kessler’s recovery as to disqualify him as a witness. Whatever might be the effect of a verdict on the plea of non demisit or of no rent in arriere, or of eviction by the landlord, it is certain that the alleged effect would not proceed from a verdict in favor of Kessler, on the plea of property in himself, and not in the tenant: The latter was called to prove, that he had sold the property to Kessler, and no more; and though that might, under the circumstances, have been immaterial, yet if the property were in fact discharged from the distress, for reasons which do not affect the existence of the rent, it is hard to conceive why it should exempt the tenant from a fresh proceeding. He was competent therefore to prove the issue of property which ¿id not affect the question of his liability to his landlord, and for $hat purpose, at all events, he was properly admitted.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pen. & W. 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mconahy-v-kessler-pa-1832.