Schultz v. Burlock

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Schultz v. Burlock

6 Pa. Super. 573, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 200

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 19, 1898

DocketAppeal, No. 155

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 Pa. Super. 573 (Schultz v. Burlock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schultz v. Burlock, 6 Pa. Super. 573, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 200 (Pa. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The judgment which the court below refused to open was entered against the lessee who had signed and sealed it, and who was charged with the performance of the covenants in the lease for the premises which she occupied. The lease supporting the judgment provided for a- tenancy from month to month, and possession of the premises was taken at the beginning of the term.

The landlord accepted the lease as made by the tenant, and, in affirmance of it, he made several demands for rent which proved futile in producing the money. He then entered the judgment in ejectment for recovery of possession of the property.

The case of Jennings v. McComb, 112 Pa. 518, is not a parallel one. The lease in this case is not in contravention of the statute of frauds one of the purposes of which was for the protection of landowners, and was intended to guard them against prejudice in the proof of parol contracts; hence the requirements of the statute are answered by a memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged therewith. If therefore it is signed by the vendor alone and delivered to the vendee, who accepts and acts under it, it is all that the statute requires: Lowry v. Mehaffy, 10 Watts, 387; Cadwalader v. App, 81 Pa. 194.

The judgment was self-sustaining on the record: Stewart v. Lawson, 181 Pa. 549.

The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The judgment which the court below refused to open was entered against the lessee who had signed and sealed it, and who was charged with the performance of the covenants in the lease for the premises which she occupied. The lease supporting the judgment provided for a- tenancy from month to month, and possession of the premises was taken at the beginning of the term.

The landlord accepted the lease as made by the tenant, and, in affirmance of it, he made several demands for rent which proved futile in producing the money. He then entered the judgment in ejectment for recovery of possession of the property.

The case of Jennings v. McComb, 112 Pa. 518, is not a parallel one. The lease in this case is not in contravention of the statute of frauds one of the purposes of which was for the protection of landowners, and was intended to guard them against prejudice in the proof of parol contracts; hence the requirements of the statute are answered by a memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged therewith. If therefore it is signed by the vendor alone and delivered to the vendee, who accepts and acts under it, it is all that the statute requires: Lowry v. Mehaffy, 10 Watts, 387; Cadwalader v. App, 81 Pa. 194.

The judgment was self-sustaining on the record: Stewart v. Lawson, 181 Pa. 549.

The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Pa. Super. 573, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-burlock-pasuperct-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack