Case Name: RODNEY VS. CITY TO USE OF YOUNG
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1883-07
Citations: 3 Walker 505
Docket Number: No. 30
Parties: RODNEY VS. CITY TO USE OF YOUNG.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
RODNEY VS. CITY TO USE OF YOUNG.
A municipal claim may be filed without being signed by the party or his-attorney.
An affidavit of defence by the reputed owner that he has no interest in. the property against which the claim is filed is insufficient.
Error to Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County.
No. 30
July Term, 1883.
A scire facias sur municipal claim for paving was issued entitled, City to use of Thomas Young vs. J. Duval Rodney* trustee, owner, &c. An affidavit of defence was filed as follows:
J. D. Rodney, the defendant, hies the following suggestion and affidavit of defence to the sci. fa. sur claim, as above stated, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and. says that he is neither the owner nor trustee of the premises against which the claim is hied, and further that the claim as hied is insufficient to support a sci. fa., because it is not signed by the plaintiff, nor an attorney in fact, nor by a member of the bar, all of which he expects to prove at the trial of the case.
J. JD. Rodney, Esq., for plaintiff in ei'ror.
J. 8. Price, Esq., eonira,
cited Delaney vs. Gault, 30 Pa., 67; Wistar vs. City, 86 Pa., 215; Emrick vs. Dicken, 92 Pa., 78; Shaw vs. Barnes, 5 Pa., 20.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas, on January 28th, 1884, in the following opinion,
Per Curiam :
All the facts averred in the affidavit of defense constitute no defense to the action of scire facias. There was no motion to strike off the claim hied. The city ratified the action of whoever hied it, by issuing this sci. fa. on the claim. Still further the affidavit avers that the plaintiff in error is neither the owner nor trustee of the premises against which thé claim is hied. If this be so, he had no right to intervene. The judgment is in rem. only. As there is no personal liability he can have no legal interest in the result.
Judgment affirmed.