Bonnell v. Bonnell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January Term, 1888, No. 209, E. D., Error to the Common Pleas of Erie County to review a judgment in favor of the defendants in an action of ejectment, September Term, 1882, No. 4. The plaintiffs below and in error are the children of George Bonnell, deceased,. by his first wife; the defendants are the widow, who was the second wife, of said George Bonnell, and his minor son by such second wife, who claimed the land in suit under a will of said G;eorge Bonnell, whereby he…
Read the full summary
January Term, 1888, No. 209, E. D., Error to the Common Pleas of Erie County to review a judgment in favor of the defendants in an action of ejectment, September Term, 1882, No. 4. The plaintiffs below and in error are the children of George Bonnell, deceased,. by his first wife; the defendants are the widow, who was the second wife, of said George Bonnell, and his minor son by such second wife, who claimed the land in suit under a will of said G;eorge Bonnell, whereby he devised the land to said second wife for- life, with remainder in fee to his said son by her. The facts further appear…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Ouetam:
We agree that the parol sale in this case was of no validity, but after one has been in the notorious, exclusive, and hostile possession of land for half a century, it does' not make much difference whether he claims by parol title or no title at all, for the .statute of limitations conclusively establishes his right.' As to ■whether George Bonnell claimed the fee or only a life estate was a question that was fairly submitted to the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Nulton v. NultonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915