Opinion
November 19, 1947.
December 9, 1947.
Practice — Parties — Intervention — Right — Application — Grounds — Assignee of lessee — Judgment confessed under written lease.
1. On appeals by an assignee of a lessee from the dismissal of petitions for leave to intervene as a party defendant and for a rule to show cause why judgment in ejectment confessed against the lessee under the terms of a written lease should not be stricken off, in which it appeared that the defendant-lessee had not questioned the validity of the judgment; that the assignee did not claim any right to remain in possession under the original lease; and that the only ground for intervention set forth was an alleged demise by plaintiff's agent to begin after the expiration of the original term but that these allegations had not been established; it was Held that (1) the assignee was not entitled to intervene and (2) the appeals should be dismissed.
2. Before one, not a party of record, can be heard to challenge a judgment or decree, he must obtain leave to become a party by application based on sufficient ground.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, DITHRICH, ROSS, ARNOLD and FINE, JJ. (RENO, J., absent).
Appeals, Nos. 32 and 33, Oct. T., 1948, from order of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1947, No. 2578, in case of Paul Freeman v. Lazarus Behrman et al. Appeals dismissed.
Proceeding upon petitions and rules by assignee of lessee to intervene and to strike off judgment in ejectment entered by confession under a written lease.
Adjudication filed finding for plaintiff and rules discharged, opinion by KUN, J. Petitioner appealed.
Michael Edelman, for appellant.
Paul Freeman, in propria persona, with him Freeman Fox, for appellee.
Argued November 19, 1947.
Lessor entered a judgment in ejectment against lessee under the terms of a written lease.
Lessee's assignee filed a petition for leave to intervene as a party defendant and a petition for rule to show cause why the judgment in ejectment should not be stricken off. The petition for leave to intervene alleged that lessee's assignee held possession of the premises "under a demise for the term of one year from the 15th day of October, 1947, from Jackson-Cross Company, agent for Paul Freeman," the lessor. The nature of the demise, whether written or oral, was not given, and the authority of the agent was not set forth. The court granted a rule to show cause on each petition. The lessor filed a responsive answer to the petition for leave to intervene in which it was denied that any such demise to the petitioner by the Jackson-Cross Company had been made, and in which it was also averred that the said company was not authorized by the lessor to make any demise to the petitioner. No depositions were taken, and the matter came before the court on petition and answer. The court discharged both rules. The petitioner, lessee's assignee, has appealed.
Defendant-lessee has not questioned the validity of the judgment entered on the written lease. The only ground for intervention set forth by appellant was the alleged demise to begin after the expiration of the original term; but the allegations of the petition were not established. The term under the original lease had expired.
Appellant did not claim any right to remain in possession under the original lease; and the existence or nonexistence of the alleged demise had nothing to do with the original lease which was the basis for the amicable action and judgment against defendant-lessee. See Kait v. Rose, 351 Pa. 560, 563, 41 A.2d 750. It does not appear that appellant from any point of view was entitled to intervene. See Rules Nos. 2327, 2329, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Goodrich-Amram, §§ 2327, 2329.
Appellant had no standing to question the validity of the judgment. "Before one, not a party of record, can be heard to challenge the judgment or decree, he must obtain leave to become a party by application based on sufficient ground": Jordan's Petition, 331 Pa. 270, 271, 1 A.2d 152, 153.
We find no reason to question the action of the court below.
Appeals are dismissed, at the cost of appellant.