Bixler v. Baker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. Upon a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Bedford county, the case was thus: Baker, the plaintiff below, instituted this ejectment to recover a tract of land, to which he claimed title under a warrant for one hundred acres to Joseph Sellers dated the 7th September 1796. The warrant included an improvement by Sellers adjoining Daniel Baker and Thomas Vickroy in Woodbury township; and was issued upon a certificate by two justices, agreeably to the act of 1st April…
Read the full summary
In Error. Upon a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Bedford county, the case was thus: Baker, the plaintiff below, instituted this ejectment to recover a tract of land, to which he claimed title under a warrant for one hundred acres to Joseph Sellers dated the 7th September 1796. The warrant included an improvement by Sellers adjoining Daniel Baker and Thomas Vickroy in Woodbury township; and was issued upon a certificate by two justices, agreeably to the act of 1st April 1784, specifying that the land was improved, and had been so since the spring of 1795. On the 3d of March 1797, Sellers…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
George Baker, the plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas, claimed under a warrant to Joseph Sellers dated 7th September 1796, for one hundred acres of land, including his improvement. On the 3d March 1797, Sellers conveyed his right to Andrew Dixon, who on the 10th April 1805, conveyed to George Baker, to whom a patent was issued on the 8th August 1806.
Jacob Bixler, the defendant, entered on the land, and made a settlement prior to the issuing of Baker’s patent, and he defended himself under his possession and title by settlement. It became a question, on the trial, whether…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ruggles v. GailySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- Schall v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838