Hessel v. Johnson

Citations

• 124 Pa. 233
• 16 A. 855
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1027

Syllabus

<p>(а) 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>(б) The person in possession also answered, claiming that he was in possession before the action was instituted, holding under a verbal lease made to him by the defendant therein, as agent of the owners or reputed owners of the premises, and that he had held continuously until the date of his answer.</p> <p>1. In such case, as it did not appear by the claimant’s answer that the defendant was the lawfully constituted agent of the owners, and the names of the latter were not disclosed, it was not error to make the rule upon the sheriff to execute the writ of habere facias absolute.</p>