
    Dietrich v. Dietrich, Appellant.
    
      Bent — Will—Payment into court — Lis pendens — Practice, O. P.
    
    In an action for rent where the defendant in his affidavit of defence admits rent due, but denies the right of plaintiff to recover pending a contest over the will under which she claims the demised premises, the court will enter judgment against defendant and order him to pay the money into court pending the contest over the will.
    Argued Jan. 31, 1893.
    Appeal, No. 63, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Florent Dietrich, from order of C. P. Montgomery Co., June T., 1891, No. 115, making absolute a. rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Green, Williams, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
    Assumpsit for rent.
    Plaintiff in her statement averred that the premises for which rent was claimed had been devised to her by her husband. Defendant in his affidavit of defence admitted that $141 was due for rent, but denied plaintiff’s right to recover pending a contest over the will under which she claimed the demised premises.
    The opinion of the court below was as follows, by Weand J.:
    “ The defendant admits that $141 is due for rent, but denies plaintiff’s right to recover pending the contest over the alleged will of Mathieu Dietrich. An issue has been directed to test the validity of the will, and pending this contest it is the duty of the court to protect all parties interested. This can be done by entering judgment for the amount admitted, and directing its payment into court to abide our further order.
    “ And now, Sept. 19,1892, judgment is directed to be entered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $141, with interest from commencement of suit and costs, and defendant is permitted to pay said amount into court, which payment is to relieve him from any further liability for or on account of said amount, and upon said money so being paid in, or in the event of its being realized by process of law, the prothonotary will impound the same until the further order of the court.”
    
      Error assigned was above order.
    
      
      Webster A. Melcher, for appellant,
    cited, Wall v. Wall, 123 Pa. 552; Cochran v. Young, 104 Pa. 333.
    
      N. H. Larzelere and M. M. Cribson, not heard, for appellee,
    cited, Wilson v. Gaston, 92 Pa. 207; McCort’s Ap., 98 Pa. 33; Cochran v. Young, 104 Pa. 333.
    February 13, 1893:
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.  