City of Philadelphia v. Hood

Citations

• 3 Pa. Super. 373
• 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 25

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment — Due effect to judgment — Act of 1834.</p> <p>The manifest purpose of the act of February 1, 1834, P. L. 26, was to give due effect to a judgment in ejectment by protecting the possession given under it to the plaintiff from subsequent intrusion by the defendant or claimants under him, in disregard of the judgment, for a period of three years from the return day of the preceding writ.</p> <p>Ejectment — Proceedings under act of 1834 — Pluries writ of h. f. p.— Practice, G. P.</p> <p>Proceedings to enforce judgment under the act of 1834, are in.accord with good practice, where a petition is presented, notice served on defendant and answer filed by him; depositions taken in pursuance of a rule after due notice.</p> <p>Where these depositions show title in plaintiff, the ejectment of defendant under a former writ, together with his re-entry and forcible retention of the premises, a rule allowing a pluries writ of h. f. p. was properly made absolute.</p> <p>The proceeding is in execution of a judgment aiding in the fulfillment of the court’s decree. The title to land cannot be tested in this proceeding, and none but the defendant in the ejectment, and those claiming under him, can be affected by it.</p> <p>Ejectment — Effect and purpose of proceedings under act of 1834.</p> <p>Were it not for the proceedings under the act of 1834, and the limitations placed thereon, a defendant might continue indefinitely his defiance of a judgment in ejectment by setting up one worthless title after another. Such trifling with the administration of justice cannot be tolerated. The ground on which an alias or pluries writ is to issue is the possession given to the plaintiff by the preceding writ, and the subsequent intrusion by the defendant. Proof of this is the “ cause shown,” on which the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of the fruit of his judgment.</p>