Smith v. Pringle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Smith v. Pringle

100 Pa. 275, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 55

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 24, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 100 Pa. 275 (Smith v. Pringle) 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

Smith v. Pringle, 100 Pa. 275, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 55 (Pa. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Sharswood

delivered the opinion of the court, April 24th 1882.

The judgment in this case was entered under the power contained in the lease by Pringle to Smith, for one year from April 1st 1875, at the rent of $450. The judgment was confessed for the full sum of $450, evidently to secure the payment of that rent. There is nothing to extend it as security beyond that amount. The renewal of the lease by the tenant continuing in possession, clearly would not do so. When, therefore, the rent for the term of the lease was paid, the judgment was paid. The implied renewal of the lease could not revive the judgment, once extinguished and dead. That the plaintiff might have recovered the rent accruing subsequently, was nothing to the purpose. The second and third points of the defendant ought to have been affirmed without qualification.

Judgment reversed, and venire facias de novo.

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

Chief Justice Sharswood

delivered the opinion of the court, April 24th 1882.

The judgment in this case was entered under the power contained in the lease by Pringle to Smith, for one year from April 1st 1875, at the rent of $450. The judgment was confessed for the full sum of $450, evidently to secure the payment of that rent. There is nothing to extend it as security beyond that amount. The renewal of the lease by the tenant continuing in possession, clearly would not do so. When, therefore, the rent for the term of the lease was paid, the judgment was paid. The implied renewal of the lease could not revive the judgment, once extinguished and dead. That the plaintiff might have recovered the rent accruing subsequently, was nothing to the purpose. The second and third points of the defendant ought to have been affirmed without qualification.

Judgment reversed, and venire facias de novo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Pa. 275, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-pringle-pa-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack