Case ID: pen-w_3/html/0467-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

M’CONAHY against KESSLER.
    Xu an action of replevin by a stranger against a landlord, who had distrained his property on the demised premises, for rent, on the plea of property in himself, and not in the tenant, the tenant is a competent witness to testify that the prop, erty belonged to the plaintiff.
    Error to Mifflin county.
    This was an action of replevin, in which Frederick Kessler was plaintiff, and James M’Conahy was defendant. M’Conahy had leased a house to John Boombaugh, and the rent being due, M’Conahy distrained a stove on the premises, for which Kessler took out the replevin; upon the trial the plaintiff' offered Boombaugh the tenantas a witness, to prove that he had, previously to the distress, sold the stove to Kessler, and that when distrained it belonged to Kessler. The witness was objected to on the ground ofinterest; the objection was over-ruled and the defendant excepted. This was the only point argued and decided.
    
      I. Fisher, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Potter, contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

The argumenton the only point which has been pressed,.is that a verdict for Kessler would preclude M’Conahy from baYing recourse to Boombaugh the tenant, who is therefore supposed to have such an interest in Kessler’s recovery as to disqualify him as a witness. Whatever might be the effect of a verdict on the plea of non demisit or of no rent in arriere, or of eviction by the landlord, it is certain that the alleged effect would not proceed from a verdict in favor of Kessler, on the plea of property in himself, and not in the tenant: The latter was called to prove, that he had sold the property to Kessler, and no more; and though that might, under the circumstances, have been immaterial, yet if the property were in fact discharged from the distress, for reasons which do not affect the existence of the rent, it is hard to conceive why it should exempt the tenant from a fresh proceeding. He was competent therefore to prove the issue of property which ¿id not affect the question of his liability to his landlord, and for $hat purpose, at all events, he was properly admitted.

Judgment affirmed.