Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 Pa. 217

McLaughlin v. McGee

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1875

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1875-10-04

<p>1. A tenant received due notice to quit at the end of his term and proceedings were commenced by the iamdlord before a justice to obtain possession ; the justice dismissed the proceedings on the ground that the landlord had extended the term. In ejectment by the landlord for the same premises, Held that these proceedings, being merely a finding that the complaint was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and not a judgment for the defendant, could not prevent a recovery in a subsequent ejectment on a good title.</p> <p>2. Ejectment by a landlord against a tenant to recover possession after the expiration of the term, either by efflux of time, forfeiture or other ground, is not a proceeding in equity, but at law; a prior verdict in ejectment for the tenant is therefore not conclusive; it is persuasive evidence merely.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1923

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-10-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, October 11th 1875,

Per Curiam.

¶2There.is nothing in the assignment of error upon questions of evidence which needs discussion. The landlord and tenant proceedings before the justice was no bar to the landlord’s recovery in this ejectment. The proceedings of the landlord before the justice resulted in no judgment, but was merely dismissed because it had not been sustained by sufficient evidence. This could not prevent a recovery in a subsequent ejectment where a good title to recover is shown. An ejectment by a landlord against his tenant to recover possession after the expiration of his term, either by efflux of time, forfeiture or other legal ground, is not a proceeding in equity, but one at law. A prior verdict and judgment in ejectment for the tenant is therefore not conclusive. It is only persuasive evidence. The quotation from the charge on this point is not sufficiently full to exhibit its true and fair meaning.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/79/pa/217 · .json · Public domain