Brasington v. Hanson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 462, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiffs, Oscar Brasington et al., from judgment of C. P. Warren Co., Sept. T., 1886, No. 34, on verdict' for defendants, John P. Hanson et al. Ejectment. At the trial before Brown, P. J., it appeared that in 1842 the premises in question were conveyed by a deed in which Archibald Tanner was named as party of the first part and Sally Brasington as party of the second part.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 462, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiffs, Oscar Brasington et al., from judgment of C. P. Warren Co., Sept. T., 1886, No. 34, on verdict' for defendants, John P. Hanson et al. Ejectment. At the trial before Brown, P. J., it appeared that in 1842 the premises in question were conveyed by a deed in which Archibald Tanner was named as party of the first part and Sally Brasington as party of the second part. The grant was to “ the said party of the second part, her heirs,” the words “ and assigns ” immediately following “ heirs ” being stricken out both here and in the habendum and warranty.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The first and second specifications were not pressed upon the argument at bar. The remaining specifications involve the proper construction of 'the deed of Arthur Tanner to Sally Brasington. The learned judge below held, and we think properly, that this deed vested in Sally Brasington, and her four sons named therein, the immediate right to the possession and enjoyment of the lots in controversy, as tenants in common. See fifth specification. The grant in the deed is to Sally Brasington, “ for the only use and behoof of the said Brasington, and her heirs, viz.: Samuel, Milton,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brolasky's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Blackburn v. BlackburnTennessee Supreme Court · 1902
- Magner v. Fairchild Motor Car Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1919