Beltzhoover v. Waltman
Beltzhoover v. Waltman
Opinion of the Court
The decree of the Common Pleas seems to be founded on a just construction of the Act of 1772. It is true the provision of the 8th Anne, from which our Act was taken, that the distress be made “ during the possession of the tenant from whom such arrears are due,” has been omitted in it; but it is implied by the very nature of the power given to distrain after the determination of the lease, “ as if such lease had not been ended or determined,” for a distress before the end of a lease must necessarily be during the possession of the lessee. The legislature probably had in view the case of a holding over, such as they provided for in other respects by previous sections; but we do not at present say whether the property of a tenant holding by a renewed lease might not be distrained, provided no one else had gained an interest in it —we leave that point to be decided when it shall arise—but the legislature certainly did not mean to jeopard the
Decree affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Beltzhoover against Waltman
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published