TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clay v. Iseminger

Harry G. Clay, Administrator, etc. v. Adam Iseminger, and Elmer H. Rogers, terretenant

Clay v. Iseminger, 41 A. 38 (Pa. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 21, 1898
Docket
Nos. , No. 63
Judges
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell
Citations
41 A. 38187 Pa. 1081898 Pa. LEXIS 775
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Ground rents — Constitutional law — Retroactive legislation — Act of April 27, 1855. The Act of April 27, 1855, P. L. 369, relating to ground rents, is not unconstitutional, inasmuch as it merely operates to deprive the owner of a ground rent of a remedy for its collection after twenty-one years by raising a conclusive presumption of release or extinguishment. In an action to recover arrears of ground rent reserved by deed dated January 4, 1854, an affidavit of defense is sufficient which avers that no payment, claim or demand for the rent had been made by any one for more than twenty-one years, and that within that period of time no declaration or acknowledgment of the existence of the rent had been made by any one owning the premises.
Summary
Appeal, No. 63, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1896, No. 240, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for ground rent. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Craig Biddle, P. J. The averments of the affidavit of defense are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment. Section 7 of the act of April 27, 1855, does not apply to rents reserved before its passage, because such application would impair the contract: Angelí on Limitations, 37; Green y. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1. This is not a statute perfecting title by adverse possession: Haines’s App. 73 Pa. 169. Biddle v. Hooven does not rule this case. The act of April 27, 1855, is constitutional: Korn v. Browne, 64 Pa. 55; Biddle v. Hooven, 120 Pa. 221; Wallace v. Church, 152 Pa. 258 ; Sharpless v. Phila. 21 Pa. 164; Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by Mr. Justice Fell,

The action was to recover arrears of ground rent reserved by deed dated January 4,1854. In the affidavit of defense it was averred that no payment, claim or demand for the rent had been made by anyone for more than twenty-one years, and that within that period of time no declaration or acknowledgment of the existence of the rent had been made by anyone owning the premises. This brings the case directly within the provisions of the 7th section of the Act of April 27,1855, P. L. 369, and the questions raised relate to the constitutionality of that section and to its application to ground rents reserved before its passage.

Both of these questions have been squarely presented and decided. The legislative intent to give the act a retroactive effect is apparent. In Korn v. Browne, 64 Pa. 55 , which appears to be the first ease in which the act was considered, it was decided that as the act did not go into effect for three years the retroactive bar was constitutional. In Biddle v. Hooven, 120 Pa. 221 , the constitutionality of the act was the only question raised, and it was held that, as the act merely operated to deprive the owner of the rent of a remedy for its collection after twenty-one years by raising a conclusive presumption of release or extinguishment, it was constitutional. In that case, as well as in the case of Wallace v. The Church, 152 Pa. 258 , which decided that the act makes no exception in favor of persons under disabilities when their titles accrue, the ground rents were created before the passage of the act of 1855. We must therefore consider the questions at rest.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1899: 21904: 11905: 11908: 11911: 11912: 11919: 11930: 11946: 118992026peak 1899 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Co.132 F. 434 (8th Cir. 1904)
  2. Wooster v. Bateman102 N.W. 521 (Iowa 1905)
  3. Ketzel v. Hammermill Paper Co.48 A.2d 89 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1946)
  4. DeJoseph v. Standard Steel Car Co.99 Pa. Super. 497 (1930)
  5. Osborne v. Lindstrom46 L.R.A. 715 (N.D. 1899)
  6. Myers v. Lohr72 Pa. Super. 472 (1919)

Most recent

  1. Ketzel v. Hammermill Paper Co.48 A.2d 89 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1946)
  2. DeJoseph v. Standard Steel Car Co.99 Pa. Super. 497 (1930)
  3. Myers v. Lohr72 Pa. Super. 472 (1919)
  4. Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Singheiser84 A. 141 (Pa. 1912) · Dissent
  5. Murphy v. Green48 Pa. Super. 1 (1911)
  6. Cadwalader v. Springsteen36 Pa. Super. 134 (1908)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Korn v. Browne, 64 Pa. 55 (1870) 10
Wallace v. Fourth U. P. Church, 25 A. 520 (Pa. 1893) 6
Biddle v. Hooven, 13 A. 927 (Pa. 1888) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list