Schuchman v. Borough of Homestead
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, of Allegheny County: To October and November Term, 1884, No. 165. Ejectment by the Borough of Homestead against Frederick Scliuehman, Michael Marshall and Wm. M. Carney, to recover three lots of ground held in severalty by the defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, of Allegheny County: To October and November Term, 1884, No. 165. Ejectment by the Borough of Homestead against Frederick Scliuehman, Michael Marshall and Wm. M. Carney, to recover three lots of ground held in severalty by the defendants. Before the trial each of the defendants filed a disclaimer as to all the land except that occupied by himself; and the plaintiff filed an amended description of the land in controversy so as to embrace the three lots in one description, including the streets separating them. The said lots were situated along the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
When charging the jury the learned judge of the Common Pleas remarked that Ormsby Phillips purchased the lots of land in controversy without notice or knowledge that they had been dedicated to public use ; that there was nothing on the face of the plan to indicate that they were so dedicated, or sufficient to put á purchaser at sheriff’s sale on inquiry; and that there is no evidence that the Homestead Bank and Life Insurance Company ever offered said lots for sale, or improved them, or that any person had actual possession of them until after the sheriff’s sale in 1880.
The special verdict…
2Cited by6 opinions
- In re GravesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- East Birmingham Realty Co. v. Birmingham Machine & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- City of Spokane v. Catholic Bishop of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1949
- Haggard v. MitchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Nohowel v. HallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.