Schomaker v. Heinz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Schomaker v. Heinz, 77 Pa. Super. 30 (1921)
1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 201
Head, Henderson, Keller, Linn, Orlady, Porter, Trexler
Schomaker v. Heinz
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The question involved, as submitted by the appellant is as follows:
“Was there a disputed question of fact under the pleadings and evidence requiring this case to be submitted to the jury.”
The trial-judge directed the jury that there was no fact in dispute for them to determine, and that the defendant was entitled to a verdict. On a motion for a new trial, and for judgment non obstante veredicto, the court in banc in an opinion filed refused the motions and directed judgment to be entered on the verdict.
This opinion disposes of every question raised by the assignment, and for the reasons therein given the judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Landlord and tenant — Leases—Exclusive possession — Condition of premises at execution of lease — Beginning of term — Change hy landlord — Cancellation of lease.' Upon the execution of a lease there is an implied warranty that the condition of the premises described in the lease shall remain the same between the time of the execution of the instrument and the beginning of the term. Where a landlord rented a city property on which there was an. old dwelling, and as a condition of the lease agreed to remove the same, but in addition allowed a third party to dump earth on the premises without the consent of the lessee, and thereby changed the character of the leasehold, he cannot recover in an action for the rent. If a material change has taken place in the character of the premises the tenant is not bound to take possession, as the premises tendered, are not those described in the lease.