Barclay v. Kerr
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county : Of January Term 1885, No. 122. Partition by Edward. F. Kerr, administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo of Abraham Kerns, deceased, Josephine Kerns, widow of McDonald Ridgely Kerns, deceased, (who was a devisee of Abraham Ker.ns, deceased, and heir at law of Henry Miller Kerns, deceased,) Etta N. Reamer, Ida Reamer, Mary K. Reamer by her committee Etta N. Reamer, Charles C. Reamer and Georgia Edith Reamer by their…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county : Of January Term 1885, No. 122. Partition by Edward. F. Kerr, administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo of Abraham Kerns, deceased, Josephine Kerns, widow of McDonald Ridgely Kerns, deceased, (who was a devisee of Abraham Ker.ns, deceased, and heir at law of Henry Miller Kerns, deceased,) Etta N. Reamer, Ida Reamer, Mary K. Reamer by her committee Etta N. Reamer, Charles C. Reamer and Georgia Edith Reamer by their guardian Etta N. Reamer, being heirs at law óf Georgiana R. Reamer, formerly Kerns, deceased, who was a devisee of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
It is somewhat difficult to understand why this case has been brought up for review. It is admitted that the plaintiffs are the representatives, devisees and heirs at law of Abraham Kerns, and as such represent the one undivided 'half of the land in controversy, and that, in like manner, the defendants, heirs and legatees of Samuel M. Barclay, represent the other undivided half part. The defendants, under the Act of the 5th of February, 1821, made declaration of their wish to hold their purpart together, and the plaintiffs did the like. Thus, there was really no dispute as to title, or as to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Doyle's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Stickles v. OviattSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Stefanick v. Dawson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1954