Case Name: Lynch v. Lynch, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1908-05-18
Citations: 221 Pa. 423
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 47
Parties: Lynch v. Lynch, Appellant.
Judges: Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Mestrezat, Potter and Stewart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 423–425

Head Matter:
Lynch v. Lynch, Appellant.
Ejectment — Finality of action — Pending action — Acts of May 8, 1901, P. L. 142, and April 23,1903, P. L. 293.
The Acts of May 8, 1901, P. L. 142, and April 23, 1903, P. L. 293, making one verdict and judgment in a legal ejectment final and conclusive, do not apply to an action of ejectment begun on February 19,1889, and in which final judgment was entered on September 18,1903.
Argued April 15, 1908.
Appeal, No. 47, Jan. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1903, No. 938, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edward A. Lynch v. Sarah A. Lynch.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Mestrezat, Potter and Stewart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Ejectment for land in Pittston township. Before Halsey, J.
At the trial a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
On a rule for a new trial Halsey, J., filed the following opinion :
This is an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff to recover an undivided one-fourth interest in a piece of land in the township of Pittston, this county, containing 527 acres and 122 perches, being parts of three respective tracts of land in the warrantee names of Jesse Fell, Jonathan Hancock and David Young. The action has been pending in this court since February 19,1889. It has been on appeal in the Supreme Court. It has been heard upon motion for a new trial in this court and it is now here in this action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant upon a writ that issued on September 15, 1908.
In trying the action, we were governed by the lines marked by the several respective courts in the prior trials of the same issue in such courts. The reasons alleged for a new trial are almost entirely those that have been contended for by the defendant in the trials of the action heretofore. The one exception is as to whether or not the plaintiff was not concluded by a former verdict in this case on December 13, 1902, upon which judgment was entered on September 18, 1903.
• Under an Act of assembly approved on May 8, 1901, P. L. 142, the first section of this act provides, that where one verdict shall in any writ of ejectment between the same parties be given for plaintiff or defendant and judgment entered thereon, no new ejectment shall be brought, but such verdict and judgment thereon shall be final and conclusive and bar the right. Sec. 3 of the same act provides: “ Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to apply to any writ or writs of ejectment now pending.” In explanation of the proviso of this Act, the legislature on April 23,1903, P. L. 293, amended sec. 3 of the act of 1901, by enacting that nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to lands or tenements as to which any writ or writs of ejectment were pending- and final judgment not entered at the time of the approval of the act thereby amended. As we have seen, the act was approved on May 8, 1901.
May 18, 1908:
We cannot conclude that the acts of May 8, 1901 and April 23, 1903, apply to these actions. It is our conclusion that they are excepted by the said two respective acts out of the applicability of the first section of the act of May 8, 1901. The original act was approved on May 8, 1901. The action in No. 416, February Term, 1898, was begun on February 3, 1898, and no final judgment was entered in that case until September 18, 1903. The act of April 23, 1903, specifically excludes the operation of the act of May 8, 1901, as to all cases in which any writ or writs of ejectment were pending and final judgment not entered at the time of the approval of the act hereby amended. The act was approved on May 8, 1901, the amended act approved April 23, 1903, and final judgment was not entered until September 18, 1903. By exact application of the two respective acts to the facts of this case, the act of May 8, 1901, does not apply. It is our judgment that it does not apply under the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeld, Appellant, v. Cunningham, 216 Fa. 523.
Hule discharged.
Errors assigned were various rulings on the instructions.
A. Ricketts, for appellant.
James L. Lenaham,, with him John T. Lenahan, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Judgment affirmed on the opinion of the court below refusing a new trial.