Hessel v. Fritz

Citations

• 124 Pa. 229
• 16 A. 853
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1026

Syllabus

<p>(a) On a rule to show cause why the sheriff should not proceed to execute a writ of habere facias, issued after a judgment for the plaintiff in an action of ejectment, the sheriff answered that he found another in possession, claiming to hold by a paramount title.</p> <p>(b) The person in possession also answered, claiming that he was in possession before the action of ejectment was instituted, and held, not under defendants therein, but under title paramount to that of the defendants, had not been made; a party to said action, and remained in possession when the habere facias issued.</p> <p>1. In such case, it was error to make the rule absolute and order the claimant in possession to be ejected, without hearing or trial and without a day in court ; and, as by said order the claimant was brought upon the record, he was entitled to a writ of error in his own name upon which to review the proceeding.</p>