Legal Opinion

Goldsmith v. Means

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 2, 1931No. Appeal 420PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This ejectment was tried by a judge without a jury. The plaintiff appeals. The parties are adjoining lot owners. The lots, with the triangle claimed by each, and the precise point for decision, and the reason for our conclusion, can perhaps most readily be understood by reference to a rough copy of the plan of lots referred to in the deed to defendant and inserted in this opinion, and by quotations from the following descriptions from duly recorded deeds in evidence.

We begin with a time when title to plaintiff’s and defendant’s lots was in the Pennsylvania Company etc. et…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Burgess of Birmingham v. AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
  2. Lawyer v. AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  3. Harper Et Ux. v. ColemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  4. Lawver v. AndersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nicholas, J. v. Hofmann, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Baker v. ZingelmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Baker v. ZingelmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API