Caryl v. Fenner
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,
This is an action of ejectment. Defendants objected to plaintiff’s combined statement and abstract of title as insufficient. The court below sustained the objection, because the pleading, though averring that the titles of the litigants came from the same grantor, did not show that plaintiff’s was “the earlier title.” She was not required to show this by her pleading, but only to set forth a prima facie title in herself: Dunn v. Milanovich, 302 Pa. 184. She submitted, however, to the court’s order, which was: “The affidavit in the nature of a demurrer is…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- King Et Al., Appellants, v. BrillhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Putnam v. Ensign Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- First Pool Gas Coal Co. v. Wheeler Run Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Shaw v. CornmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Gailey v. Wilkinsburg Real Estate Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Richardson v. SavageSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Alexander v. AlexanderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Curtis v. Webb, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1947
- DiMario v. Cook, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County1946
- First National Bank v. Serro, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County1944