
    W. W. BARR v. J. N. McFALL ET AL.
    APPEAL BY J. N. MCFALL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
    Argued November 7, 1889
    Decided January 6, 1890.
    One partner is not entitled, under § 84, act of June 16, 1836, P. L. 777, to priority of payment of the rent of premises owned by him and demised to the partnership, out of the proceeds of an execution sale of the partnership property, although the process issued upon judgments confessed against the firm by the other partners alone.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Clark, Williams, Mc-Collum and Mitchell, JJ.
    No. 239 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, Nos. 4-7 December Term 1887, E. D., C. P. No. 1.
    The firm of McFall, Hetzel & Co. was composed of John N. McFall, W. A. Hetzel and G. B. Garrison. That firm being indebted to W. W. Barr in the sum of $3,750, J. N. Garrison & Bro., in the sum of $13,279.10, J. N. Garrison and J. A. Hetzel, in the sum of $7,511.70, and J. A. Hetzel in.the sum of $15,330, two of the three members of the firm confessed judgments to their said firm creditors respectively for the debts aforesaid. Executions Nos. 4, 5, 6, ‘7 December Term 1887, were duly issued upon said judgments, and the personal property of the firm levied upon and sold by the sheriff, the proceeds of sale amounting to less than twenty-five per cent of the judgments. The judgment notes upon which these judgments were entered were signed by the firm name, and by the names of Hetzel and Garrison, two of the three partners. John N. McFall, the other partner, being owner of the real estate upon which the business of the firm had been conducted, claimed $1,000 out of the proceeds of sale, for one year’s rent of the premises occupied by the firm, the said premises being owned by him. The court, without opinion filed, refused to order said sum to be paid to him, upon his petition setting forth the facts, whereupon he took this appeal, assigning the refusal of the order as error.
    
      
      Mr. A. M. Watson, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. A. M. Brotvn, Mr. Miller and Mr. Hartje, for the appellees, were not heard.
   Per Curiam:

The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

Decree affirmed.  