Standard Metallic Paint Co. v. Prince Manuf. Co.

19 A. 411, 133 Pa. 474, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 922
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County·Decided March 24, 1890·No. No. 43·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Under the facts as found in the amended verdict, the court below entered judgment for the defendants non obstante veredicto. We fail to see error in this. The deed of trust from Augustus Lehr and wife, of October 25, 1860, gave to Mrs. Lehr a life-estate only. It follows that the lease could not extend beyond such estate. At her death the property vested in Augustus Lehr. It was sold as his estate, by his administrator, for the payment of his debts. Wilson Kline became the purchaser at said sale, and subsequently he leased the property to the Prince- Manufacturing Company, defendant below. We are of opinion the said company took a good title, and that the judgment below was properly entered.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Standard Metallic Paint Co. v. Prince Manuf. Co., 19 A. 411, 133 Pa. 474, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 922 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1890).

19 A. 411 (Standard Metallic Paint Co. v. Prince Manuf. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wingert v. T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co.
157 A.2d 92 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1959)
Frankford Trust Co. v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.
153 A. 747 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Sweeney v. Hagerstown Trust Co.
125 A. 522 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1924)
Upham v. Plankinton
140 N.W. 5 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1913)
Hubbell v. Hubbell
135 Iowa 637 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1907)