Wilkinson v. Connell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 268, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, John P. Connell, from judgment of’ C. P. Indiana Co., Dec. T., 1890, No. 291, on verdict for plaintiff, George Wilkinson. Trespass quare clausum fregit. Before White, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 268, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, John P. Connell, from judgment of’ C. P. Indiana Co., Dec. T., 1890, No. 291, on verdict for plaintiff, George Wilkinson. Trespass quare clausum fregit. Before White, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court charged in part as follows : “It has been held by our courts that where a man is in possession of a farm, part of it cleared and part of it woodland, the woodland not inclosed, and some of his timber on the woodland is cut, he can maintain an action of trespass for the cutting of his wood, for the invasion of his…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
If this action was ejectment we should have no doubt that it was tried correctly so far as this record enables us to judge. It was trespass quare clausum fregit. To enable a plaintiff to maintain this action he must have the possession, actual or constructive, of the close which he alleges has been invaded; If the land entered by the trespasser is unimproved, possession will be presumed to accompany the title, and this constructive possession will support an action. If the land is improved, that fact shows that it is in the actual possession of some one. In such…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Africa v. TrexlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Northeast Women's Center, Inc. v. McMonagleDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1987
- Enterprise Transit Co. v. Hazelwood Oil Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Fuller v. ColeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Griffin v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.