Hazard's Register of Pennsylvania Volume 4 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1829 Excerpt: ...to enabla him "to extend his levy," it might fairly be contended that even such a rule w-s complied with here. The whole circumstances of the case, so far from exhibiting such negligence on the part of the plaintiff, is ought to deprive her of a legal preference given by positive law in my judgment, proves her to be the aggrieved party. The defendant in executing his writ not only removed from the premises property of the tenant adequate to satisfy the debt and costs, but "amply sufficient to satisfy the rent and execution." The residue, after selling to the amount of the execution, was left, by the defendant, at the place of sale, where the plaintiff could not distrain them for such part of the rent as was absolutely due, and where the goods were subject to other executions, which if levied there, would necessarily defeat the plaintiff's claim for rent; such claim being limited to cases in which an execution is levied on goods upon the demised premises. The event actually occurred--a second execution swept them away, and being levied on them, off the premises, -he District Court, with perfect propriety, refused to appropriate any part of tha proceeds of the sale, under the second execution, to the paymeptofthe plaintiff's rent. This removal of the plaintiff's security was needless if not vexatious, if the defendant only contemplated satisfying his execution, and resulted in the loss of all the rent due if this case is determined against her. I attach no other importance to the alleged declaration of the tenant to the defendant, that no rent was due when the execution was levied; except so far as it brings home to hiui the knowledge of the existence of a tenancy; and ttaifuct being ascertained, he ought t- have known that it...