Gardinier v. Marcy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to Susquehanna county. John Marcy claiming to be an owner of a tract of land, upoii which Andrew Gardinier and others had cut a large quantity of timber, brought an action of replevin against them for the timber,- and an action of trespass for cutting it; and, the material question-which arose between the parties, on the trial of these causes by the' same jury, Was to whom the title of the land belonged.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Susquehanna county. John Marcy claiming to be an owner of a tract of land, upoii which Andrew Gardinier and others had cut a large quantity of timber, brought an action of replevin against them for the timber,- and an action of trespass for cutting it; and, the material question-which arose between the parties, on the trial of these causes by the' same jury, Was to whom the title of the land belonged. The plaintiff claimed title, which originated- in an actual settlement by Ruben Collar fifty years ago; Collar sold to Jacob Shuch, who sold to the plaintiff and he had resided upon the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was. delivered by
Kennedy, J.
The first error assigned is in a bill of exception to evidence rejected by the court. The defendants below, who are the plaintiffs in error, offered to prove by Mr Chapman, the deputy-surveyor of the district, who made the survey locating the warrant of Gardinier, one of the plaintiffs in error, that at the time he was doing the same, and when he was about to run the lines between Marcy, the defendant in error’s improvements, and the Hartley survey, William Hartley, who at the time, or previously thereto, had *340been interested in or owner of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Marcy v. GardinierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Goodman v. LoseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Broad Top Coal & Iron Co. v. Riddlesburg Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870