Case Name: WEST PERRY TOWNSHIP OVERSEERS VS. MONROE TOWNSHIP OVERSEERS
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1884-06-09
Citations: 2 Walk. 262
Docket Number: No. 256
Parties: WEST PERRY TOWNSHIP OVERSEERS VS. MONROE TOWNSHIP OVERSEERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 262–268

Head Matter:
WEST PERRY TOWNSHIP OVERSEERS VS. MONROE TOWNSHIP OVERSEERS.
A pauper acquires a settlement by a year’s continuous tenancy of premises of the value of $10 and payment of the rent.
Two tenancies under rent separated by an interval, when a pauper occupied a property to hold possession for the owner, cannot be joined together to acquire a settlement.
The Supreme Court will not review the opinion of the lower Court, on a gen.eral exception.
Error to the Quarter Sessions of Juniata County. No. 256 January Term, 1884.
This was an appeal by the Overseers of the Poor of West Perry Township, Snyder County, from an order of removal of' Caroline Gordon and family, who had become chargeable to Monroe Township, Juniata County, from which they were-removed to West Perry Township. The Court of Quarter Sessions of Juniata County affirmed the order of removal on Dec. 27th, 1883 in the following opinion per:
Barnett, P. J.
Reuben R. Gordon leased a house in West Perry Twp., Snyder County, at an annual rental of $25, and moved into it, with his wife and family of six minor children, in the second week of April, 1880, and resided therein until about the 18th November, 1881, having paid about $27 of the rent. lie thus gained a settlement in said township.
In November, 1881, he removed with his family to Monroe Twp., Juniata County, where he continued to reside until the spring of 1883, when having been arrested for a criminal offence, he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in Pittsburg. His family became chargeable, and an order of removal to West Perry Twp. was duly obtained, from which the latter appealed, on the ground, that Gordon had gained a settlement in Monroe Township, by taking a lease of real estate, upon which he had dwelt for one whole year, and paid a rent of ten dollars or more.
The material facts and those necessary to a proper understanding of the case are substantially as follows :
Edmund S. Doty, ■ Esq., had formerly become the owner of what was known as the Garnian Hotel property., in Monroe Twp., Juniata County. There are two houses on this property — a stone tavern stand and a brick dwelling house. Some five or six years ago Mr. Doty sold to Daniel Schroll, taking a mortgage for $3,000 to secure purchase money. Mr. Schroll lived on the premises until the spring of 1881, when he sold and conveyed to Samuel Roads, subject to Mr. Doty’s mortgage, and Roads went into possession and occupied the stone house until in November, 1881, when he left in order to escape arrest. His family remained until January, 1882, and then they left also.
Gordon and his family moved into the brick house before Roads had left, in November, 1881, in pursuance of a verbal agreement to pay him ten dollars rent until the 1st of April, 1882. But when Roads vacated the stone house, Gordon' moved into and occupied it, first under an arrangement, with Mr. Doty to hold possession of the promises for him as mortgagee; and subsequently under a written agreement between him and Messrs. Doty and Schroll, entered into on the 18th May, 1882, by virtue of which they leased to Gordon “the stone house and garden belonging thereto, or what is called the ‘Garman Tavern,’ in Monroe Township, Juniata County, formerly a tavern stand, and now occupied by the said Reuben, for one year from the first day of April last, and to and on 31st day of March, A. D. 1883, without further notice” for the consideration of “Thirty Dollars rent in four equal payments, in advance” payable respectively on the first days of June, August, October and January next, thereafter. Gordon remained on the premises until some time before April, 1883.
As the tenant of Samuel Roads, Gordon paid on account of rent to Annie Tscliubb, Road’s hired help, 75 cts. in money, and repaired her shoes for 50 cts. He also repaired boots .for Roads and his son to the amount of $1.00, and shoes for Roads’ wife for 50 cts. Also before Roads left he told his wife to get Gordon to cut wood for the remainder of the rent; and Gordon’s book contains a charge of $2.00 for so cutting wood from 17th Nov., 1881, to 20th Jam, 1882. [There was thus paid altogether the sum of $1.75; and, although Roads testifies that he had no claim on Gordon for any balance of rent, the evidence fails to convince us that more than $4.75 was actually paid as rent for the tenancy under Roads from Nov., 1881 to April, 1882.] This conclusion we have reached without difficulty. But we proceed towards the next with less confidence.
Mr. Doty testifies that late in the fall of 1881, “Gordon took possession of this property for me * * * simply for the purpose of holding the possession.” “I had an agreement with Gordon ; I told him that whatever he paid in taxes I would give him credit for on the rent.” “I rented a part of this property to a man named Markley and Ebright. I leased to them the brick house the same day I leased to Gordon.” “I was never in actual possession of the property until I made the leases to Markley and Ebright for the brick property.” “Mr. Gordon first leased this property from me at' the date of the lease. He dwelt there until he was arrested some time last winter. His family lived there until near April 1, 1883. Gordon was not to pay me any rent from the time he took possession until the spring of 1882, April 1, and then the rent began. Roads conveyed to me in the early spring of 1883.” He also testifies that Daniel Schroll had no interest whatever in the land at the date of the lease; that the mortgage was against Schroll and was part of the consideration money of the sale; and that in making that lease he was exercising the right of a mortgagee in possession.
The exact force of this testimony is not easily discernable. Gordon was in possession of the brick house as the tenant of Roads, who had the legal title to the whole real estate. That tenancy was from Nov., 1881, to 1st April, 1882. But Gordon moved into the stone house late in the fall of 1881, when Roads moved out, under an arrangement with Mr. Doty to take possession of the property, simply to hold it for him as mortgagee. He was to pay no rent until 1st of April, 1882, but then the rent was to begin. What rent? and for what tenements ? [The lease executed on the 18th of May, 1882, does not in terms relate back to the preceding 1st April, because the rent is reserved payable in advance, the first payment to be made on the first day of the following month, so that the term began at the date of the lease, to continue one year from the first day of the preceding April, April being mentioned to describe the duration and end of the term, and not its beginning.] We understand this testimony to mean, that the limited possession which Gordon had obtained from Roads was extended so as to embrace the whole real estate for which Roads had the title, and upon which rested the. incumbrance of Ml. Doty’s mortgage; that when Roads abandoned his possession, Gordon, by arrangement with Mr. Doty,was to take and hold possession of the whole for him as mortgagee; and that the rent which was to begin on 1st April, 1882, was for the real estate thus held in possesion generally, and other than that specifically mentioned in the written leases afterwards made to Gordon and to Markley and Ebright. And that, through negotiations had between Messrs. Doty and Roads, the former obtained actual possession as owner, and legal title by subsequent deed of conveyance; And the lease of 18th May, 1882, was made to Gordon for the specific tenements mentioned thereinafter such actual possession was obtained by Mr. Doty. [We conclude that the rent loosely spoken of before 18 th May, 1882, and which does not appear to have reserved in terms nor amount, was mentioned in anticipation of the acquirement by Mr. Doty of actual possession by surrender of Roads. That Mr. Doty’s expectation was, through the possession taken by Gordon, to compel the amicable arrangement after-wards realized, and obtain title to the property in satisfaction of his mortgage, without delay and expense' of proceedings in Court; and when actual possession was thus obtained the written lease, for the specific premises and certain rent, was duly executed ; and that before that there was neither authority nor intention on the part of Mr. Doty to make a lease to Gordon, and. that in point of fact Gordon lived on the premises from the first day of April, 1882, to the 18th day of May thereafter without any lease for any part of the same]. We think the burden of proof is on the plaintiff; and, whether right or wrong in our understanding of the testimony and the facts to be ded’uced therefrom, at all events they have failed to convince us that Gordon bona fide took a lease of any real estate between the 1st April and the 18th May, 1882.
There were paid by Gordon the following taxes: He paid-to John Arny, who was collector for 1881, and got his duplicate in the spring of that year, a poor tax of $1.13 that had been previously assessed against Daniel Schroll. This tax was paid in the fall of 1882. He paid, by work on the roads, to Supervisor 'M. Connell a balance of road tax, assessed against Dauiel Schroll for 1882 of $1.54. He paid to E. C. Gray bill, collector for 1882, a county tax assessed against Schroll of $3.71. The tax paid to Amy was assessed before either Gordon or Doty was in possession of any part of the premises, and probably before Hoads obtained his title in the Spring of 1881. [We cannot suppose that Mr. Doty authorized Mr. Gordon to pay any taxes for which he was not liable ; and the poor tax of $1.13 not being for or on account of any liability of Mr. Doty, ought not to be considered a credit on rent.] We find therefore that Gordon paid $5.25 of taxes, which, if there were nothing else to prevent, should be considered a payment on account of rent.
Mr: Schroll authorized Mr. Gordon to put in window glass, to-fix the garden fence, to repair the stable, and to put hinge on barn door, with the understanding that the expenses therefore should be a credit on the rent. When Mr. Gordon showed Mr. Doty his book account for work and labor and repairs, the latter said in so far as the work done and repairs made were authorized by Mr. Schroll that Gordon should have proper credit therefor on account of rent. Mr. Schroll estimates the expense of putting in the glass at $1.00. The other authorized repairs altogether would not cost more than $1.00, so that the whole of the authorized repairs would not cost more than $2.00. [But Daniel Schroll further testifies that he was on the premises two or three weeks before Gordon went away, and the windows were worse than before he put the glass in ; that the stalls and mangers-were all taken out of the stable, and the boards in the mows, &c., nearly all taken out, causing a damage to the stable of not less than ten dollars; that the inside fences were all torn down; damage to the extent of $10 done to the pump and spring house• a hole was' broken through the kitchen wall and plastering broken off all through the house causing not less than twenty dollars damage. And that Gordon took and disposed of for his own benefit some forty or fifty dollars worth of Mr. Doty’s corn.]
The only credit, against all this-, are the payment of $5.25 of taxes that enured to the benefit of Mr. Doty; authorized repairs made not exceeding $2.00 in value, and possibly some unauthorized repairs that escaped this unauthorized destruction. Under the authority of Overseers of Laporte Borough vs. Overseers of. Hillsgrove Township, 14 Norris, 269; we are of opinion that no-rent was paid under Mr. Doty’s lease that availed Mi’. Gordon to acquire a settlement in Monroe Township. Also on the authority of Beaver Township vs. Bose Township, 2 Out. 636. [And under the facts in this case we are of opinion that Gordon did not reside for one year continuously on leased premises in Monroe Township. The testimony of Mr. Doty does not show a lease from him between November 1881 and May 1882, but occupancy merely for the purpose of holding possession, and the lease made on 18th May, 1882, cannot be tacked to the lease from Boads so as to make .a continuous dwelling of one year under a lease.] We-therefore affirm the points presented by Monroe Township, and affirm the order of removal. And now 27th Dec., 1883, it is ordered and adjudged that the order of removal in this case be affirmed and that West Perry Township pay the costs, including a fee of fifteen dollars to counsel for Monroe Township Poor District.
The West Perry Township took an exception as follows: And now, Dec. 27, 1883, West Perry Township except to all the-findings of fact and conclusions of law in the foregoing opinion. They then took a writ of error to the Supreme Court, assigning-for error the portions of the -opinion in brackets.
Charles Hower, Esq.
argued that the Gordon family acquired a settlement in Monroe Township, Juniata County; Allegheny City vs. Allegheny Township, 14 Penna. 138; Beaver vs. Hartley, 11 Penna. 254; Lenox vs. Nicholson, 3 Luz. L. Ob. 310.
J. Lyons, Esq. and E. S. Doty, Jr., Esqs., for defendant in error
argued that the plaintiff in error did not submit points of evidence or law, and hence could not be heard by the Supreme Court, Moreland Township vs. Davidson Township, 71 Penna. 371; Lower Augusta vs. Selinsgrove, 64 Penna. 166. The Supreme Court will not review the judgment of the’Court below on the merits ; Wayne Township vs. Jersey Shore, 32 Smith, 264; Laporte Borough vs. Hillsgrove Township, 95 Penna. 269. A general exception to the opinion of the Court is not an exception to a point of law or evidence ; Lower Augusta vs. Selinsgrove, 64 Penna. 166.
This case is ruled by the cases of Beaver vs. Rose, 98 Penna. 636; and Laporte vs. Hillsgrove, 95 Penna. 269.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court below on the 9th June, 1884, in the following opinion:
Per Curiam.
Under the facts found by the Court this case is clearly right. Besides no pioints of evidence, or of law appear to have been submitted to the Court, and we do not review the opinion of the Court on a general exception; Lower Augusta vs. Selinsgrove, 64 Pa. 166.
Judgment affirmed.