Smith v. Oliver
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR The record of this ejectment having been returned on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county, thematerial facts appeared to be these: having been prosecuted at November Sessions, 1811, for a forcible entry and detainer, by the defendant in error, James Oliver, it was subsequently agreed between them that the indictment should be discontinued, and an amicable action of ejectment entered of August Term, 1812, in which Oliver should be plaintiff,…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR The record of this ejectment having been returned on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county, thematerial facts appeared to be these: having been prosecuted at November Sessions, 1811, for a forcible entry and detainer, by the defendant in error, James Oliver, it was subsequently agreed between them that the indictment should be discontinued, and an amicable action of ejectment entered of August Term, 1812, in which Oliver should be plaintiff, and Smith defendant, who was to derive no advantage from his possession, further than he could connect it with the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, J.
Many of the errors assigned have been abandoned, and of those that remain, I shall notice only such as are connected with the merits.
The case is this. By a conveyance from a person, who had purchased at sheriff’s sale, a certain Alexander Brotan became the owner of two adjoining tracts of land, the one held by location, the other by improvement, both being described in the sheriff’s deed by particular boundaries, and as containing a certain number of acres. Alexander Brown conveys this last tract (the improvement tract,) substantially by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Brentlinger v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832