Case Name: Czepull v. Sam, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1920-07-14
Citations: 75 Pa. Super. 35
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 68
Parties: Czepull v. Sam, Appellant.
Judges: Before Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
Czepull v. Sam, Appellant.
Landlord, and tenant — Leases-—Judgment in ejectment — Opening judgment — Refusal—Discretion.
A petition to open a judgment confessed under a lease will not be allowed where the record establishes that the lease had expired, that it contained a waiver of notice to vacate and that the lessor had informed the lessee that if he continued in possession it would be at an increased rent, which the lessee refused to accept, and remained in possession notwithstanding a notice to remove.
Argued April 23, 1920.
Appeal, No. 68, April T., 1920, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Westmoreland County, November T., 1919, No'. 263, discharging rule to open judgment in the case of Elizabeth Czepull v. David Sam.
Before Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
Affirmed.
July 14, 1920:
Rule to open judgment. Before Snyder, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court discharged the rule. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the decree of the court.
Alfred M. Lee, and with him II. Clay Beistel, for appellant.
The tenant held over at the expiration of the term and the lease was renewed for another year: Phillips y. Monges, 4 Wharton 226; Hemphill y. Flynn, 2 Pa. 144; Hollis v. Burns, 100 Pa. 206; Laguerenne v. Dougherty, 35 Pa. 45; Auer v. Penn, 99 Pa. 370; Breuckmann y. Twibill, 89 Pa. 58.
John E. Kunlde, for appellee,
cited: Boggs y. Black, 1 Binney 333; Syllabus-Wilke y. Campbell, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 618; Kelber y. Pittsburgh National Plow Co., 146 Pa. 485.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Linn, J.,
The question is whether the court below erred in refusing to open a judgment in ejectment entered against appellant pursuant to a warrant contained in a lease. On appellant's petition, the court granted a rule to open, and after answer, heard the parties and their witnesses. This testimony, taken in open court, shows that prior to the expiration of the term, appellee, the lessor, proposed to appellant that if he wished another term the rent would be $75 per month instead of the amount payable during the current term; the lessee declined to accept the proposal, and also' refused to surrender possession. These proceedings resulted and were correctly disposed of by the court below: Williams v. Ladew, 171 Pa. 373, 376.
The order is affirmed.