Creigh v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Armstrong county. The plaintiffs, Creigh and others, brought an ejectment in the (£ourt below for.358| acres qfland* On the trial, the defendants ; offered evidence for. the purpose of availing them? selves ..of the benefit of .the,, act of assembly, of the 3d, Aprils 1804, directing the mode, of spiling unseated lands, for taxes¿ Thé 3d section of. this act provides,,that “no action for the “ recovery of land sold for…
Read the full summary
In Error THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Armstrong county. The plaintiffs, Creigh and others, brought an ejectment in the (£ourt below for.358| acres qfland* On the trial, the defendants ; offered evidence for. the purpose of availing them? selves ..of the benefit of .the,, act of assembly, of the 3d, Aprils 1804, directing the mode, of spiling unseated lands, for taxes¿ Thé 3d section of. this act provides,,that “no action for the “ recovery of land sold for .taxes shall lie, unless .the same “be brought-within five years, after, the sale thereof, for “ taxes, as aforesaid.…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
This is an ejectment for a tract of land in Westmoreland county. On the trial it was confessed, that the title had been in the plaintiffs, until the land was sold for taxes by the sheriff, under which sale the defendant claims. But the counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the admission of the sheriff’s deed in evidence, because it had not been proved that the tax had been laid according to law, or that the commissioners had issued a warrant to the sheriff commanding him to make sale of the land. They objected also to the admission of evidence to show the value of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Coney v. OwenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Waln v. ShearmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822