Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-09-12
COURT.
froceodings In Common Pleas-lnterestiDg
Trials for the Respective Rights Of
Rents and PrODerty.
BEFORE JUDGE LIVINGSTON.

froceea,nGs In Common Piess-InterestiDs
Trials for the Respective Rights OF
Rents and Property.
BEFORE JUDGE LIVINGSTON.
George Ramsay vs.J James NJ. McCamant,
appeal by defendant from the judgment OF
Samuel ]. Henderson, esq. The plaintiff
resides In Salisbury township and during
the years of 1870 and 1880 he occupied a
property, which be rented from Joseph
Haines. There was store room in the
building and this, together with the cellar
and second story room, was rented to the
defendant by Ramsay. lie (McCamaut)
paid his rent for 1879 but failed to do SO
between April 1st, 1880 and 1881. This
suit is brought to recover the rent, CON-
pensation for board furnished the defend
ant, feed for his horse, and rent of small
shed. The whole claim as plaintiff alleged
was due him was S261.
The defense admitted owing the plain
tiff. but claimed that his bill was too
high. They al!ege that in the spring
OF 1880, when plaintiff went to Mr.. Haines
to re-rent his property. hc asked tho de-
iendant's father to go with him to use his
influence to induce Mr.. Haines to rent the
property to him (aamsay) for 600 cheap
er than in the year 1879. Old Mr.. Mccain
ant did 20 along and they succeeded in
getting the reduction. The defense claim
that on account Of these services by the
defendants father, it was agreed that the
bargain should remain the same between
the plaintiff and defendant during the
second year as the first. Tho defense
lived in the building with that under
standing. and the first they knew that an
increase was wanted was wien they came
to settle. The defendent several times
offered to pay the plaintiff the sum of
Sl53, which he claims was all he owed.
Previous to tho calling of witnesses in
the case, the defense mado tender of the
amount which they admit owing. 1t was
refused by the plaintiff. On trial.
BEFORE JUDGE PATTERSON.
John w. Zimmerman vs. Solomon Les
ley, contestant, and Eli Gehmap, tenant,
action of ejectment to recover a tract of
land in Martindale, Earl township, con-
tanning about 40 perches with a frame
house thereon. The plaintiff alleges that
the property is unlawfully held by the de,
PENDANTS as tho right of possession is IL
him. The claim Of title was proven from
1872 through the several transfers
to George B. He'll, under whom
both parties claim title. From the
testimony of the plaintiff it appeared
that in the fail Of 1879 He'll sold this prop
erty, which was decided to plaintiff in
April, 1880, he having 5000 in tho pur
chase of the land and building Of the
house. In May, 1880, Solomon Lesley who
held a judgment against Rudolph w.
Zimmerman for S117. .1O. took this property
in execution and sold through tho sheriff,
the interest Of Rudolph Zimmerman only,
which Solomon Lesley purchased. The
plaintiff contended that Rudolph Zimmer.
man, not having at that time attaiued any
interest in the estate, the defendants are
in unlawful possession, hence tho suit.
The defense then proceeded to show by
the evidence of J. C. Martin, ESQ.,, and tho
sheriff's deed that in 1880, Rudolph sold
property for $500 and purchased this one
at tho time Of tho purchase toward which
plaintiff loaned Rudolph 5000 the deed was
made to john w. Zimmerman, in order to
SECURE his loan, the latter entering into
an agreement at the time that if Rudolph
repaid him tho 5000 on April 1st, 1880,
plaintiff would sell and convey the estate
to him, that, however, this deed had
not been recorded and therefore was
to be considered as an unrecorded mort
gage, and no notice to the world, at the
time of the sale by the sheriff, which fact
vcided its claim. When the sheriff sold
tue interest Of Rudolph Zimmerman in tho
property in May, 1880, no one else had
any interest in it, aud as it Was purchased
by Solomon Lesley for $3.50 1T that sale
and transferred to him by sheriff's deed,
he had clear title therein, and was now
in lawful possession.
After some rebutting testimony and
the answer to tho points of law submitted
by counsel, the court sustained the plain
tiff and under their instruction verdict
in favor of the plaintiff was taken, on con
tition that the judgment be released OH the
payment by defendant Of S65S with in
forest from date, and costs of suit, said
payment to bo made January 1st 1888.
BY the verdict the plaintiff gets possession
of the property and retains it until this
amount is paid.
J. L. Beardslee, surviving partner Of the
firm of j. L. Beardslee u Co., of New
York VS.. John i. Lebkicker. This case
was compromised by the parties them
selves and verdict was taken in favor Of
the plaintiff Tor 81, ,014.40.