Legal Opinion

Rotunno Et Ux. v. Joseph Et Ux.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 25, 1947No. Appeal, 153PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Although no question as to defendants’ possession of the property which is the subject matter of this action of ejectment ivas raised at the trial, it is the only question raised on this appeal.

The identical question was before the Supreme Court in Sautter et ux. v. Rowland, 285 Pa. 212, 131 A. 733. The court speaking through Mr. Justice Walling said (pp. 215-216) : “. . . no question as to possession was raised at the tidal, so, on the authorities just cited, we cannot consider it here. No doubt the plaintiff in an action of ejectment must prove defendant’s possession, which is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kreamer v. YoneidaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  2. Sautter v. RowlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  3. McIntire v. WingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  4. Helfenstein v. LeonardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fleming v. StrayerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Joseph v. Rotunno, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County1948

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

Powered by the Exa API