Case Name: Gray, Sheriff, v. McFall
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1889-01-07
Citations: 1 Monag. 176
Docket Number: No. 207
Parties: Gray, Sheriff, v. McFall.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; being those cases not designated to be reported
Volume: 1
Pages: 176–176

Head Matter:
Gray, Sheriff, v. McFall.
A case stated was framed between a landlord and the sheriff, the landlord claiming, from a fund realized by a sheriff’s sale, a year’s rent due by the defendant in the execution; but it seemed that the money was not paid into court and there was no aqreement that it should be treated as if so paid. The plaintiffs in the execution, by agreement filed, admitted the facts contained in the case slated, for the purpose of having the case decided. The court entered judgment for the plaintiff. On writ of error, held that, as there was no case before the supreme court, proper for consideration, the writ should be quashed.
Oct. 30, 1888.
Error, No. 207, Oct. T. 1888, O. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., to review a -judgment for plaintiff on a case stated, at Dec. T. 1887, No. 748.
The case stated was as follows:
“ The sheriff sold personal property on ex. Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of December Term, 1887, on premises occupied by McFall, Hetzel & Co., and realized by sale a sum of money exceeding $1,000. The firm of McFall, Hetzel & Co., claim a lease of the premises from John N. McFall for three years from May, 1885, at the rental of $1,000 per year. McFall agrees that he leased the premises, box factory, etc., to said firm at $1,000 per year, but says the lease was to terminate when the firm might dissolve. The judgments on which the above executions issued were confessed by W. A. Hetzel and G. B. Garrison, two of the partners of McFall, Hetzell & Co., for payment of partnership debts, and the property sold, to the extent of $1,000 and more, was partnership property of McFall, Hetzel & Co. John N. McFall, by A. M. Watson, his attorney, claimed from the Sheriff, out of moneys made on sale of personal property on said premises, $1,000, being one year’s rent unpaid prior to sale, and now claims that the Sheriff should pay to his attorney that sum ($1,000) rent in arrear. The plaintiffs in said executions, W. W. Barr et al., resist payment and notified the Sheriff not to pay said $1,000. If the law is with the plaintiff judgment to be entered in his favor for $1,000 and costs; if not, and the law is against the plaintiff’s claim, then judgment to be entered in favor of the defendant for .costs j that is Joseph H. Gray, Sheriff. The plaintiff, John N. McFall, is the partner of McFall, Hetzel & Co. The property, real estate, vested in .plaintiff, John N. McFall, in fee simple. Plaintiffs and defendant to have right to writ of error to supreme court.”
The court entered judgment for the plaintiff on the case stated.
The assignments of error specified the action of the court in entering judgment for the plaintiff.
A. M. Brown, with him Mueller & Hartje, for plaintiff in error.
A. M. Watson, for defendant in error.
Jan. 7, 1889.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
In this case the money in controversy was not paid into court, nor, so far as appears from the case stated, was there any agreement that it should be so treated; it follows, that we have no case before us proper for our consideration.
The writ is quashed. , A. B. W.