Lessee of Burkhart v. Bow
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This cause was marked for trial at the spring circuit for York county. Mr. Hopkins in behalf of Bucher one of defendants, *moved, that he should be separated from the other r* defendant Row, and that the plaintiff should file a dec- *- ^5 laration against each defendant, so that the suits might be tried separately.
Read the full summary
This cause was marked for trial at the spring circuit for York county. Mr. Hopkins in behalf of Bucher one of defendants, *moved, that he should be separated from the other r* defendant Row, and that the plaintiff should file a dec- *- ^5 laration against each defendant, so that the suits might be tried separately. Their freeholds are distinct; they claim under different conveyances ; and this strong circumstance attends the case of Bucher, that he has made very valuable improvements on the lands in his possession. The connecting of both defendants in one declaration, was the act of the…
1Per curiam
We see no hardship or inconvenience in this case, to which Bucher will be subjected by a joint trial. Though the plaintiff cannot compel defendants severally concerned in interest, to submit to a joint trial, yet the latter may conclude themselves by their own act. Both, or either of the defendants have a remedy for their legal costs, in case of success. However, as the Circuit Court have already given their decision on the point, it can only come regularly before us, on an appeal duly made.
Cited in 7 Watts 407 in support of the decision that in an action of ejectment against several…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jones v. HartleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jones v. HartleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Gibbons v. MartinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1877
- Nickle v. M'FarlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838