Frick v. Fiscus
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1894, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., March T., 1891, No. 178, on verdict for defendants. Trespass for unlawful entry. Before Noyes, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial defendant offered in evidence the record of proceedings to dispossess, found in the docket of ’Squire Faulk, viz., Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1894, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., March T., 1891, No. 178, on verdict for defendants. Trespass for unlawful entry. Before Noyes, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial defendant offered in evidence the record of proceedings to dispossess, found in the docket of ’Squire Faulk, viz., Wm. M. Ralston and D. W. Hawk, administrators of Reuben Allshouse v. John Frick, and the judgment thereon awarding possession to plaintiffs. Objected, to as irrelevant in this proceeding, being a warrant issue to J. H. Chambers,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinión by
Mb. Justice Williams,
The circumstances out of which this litigation arises are substantially as follows: John Frick, the plaintiff, bought a farm from R. Coulter and E. Buffington in 1865. On the day on which he received his deed he made a mortgage, covering the same land, to R. Allshouse. The mortgage described the land as lying in Cowanshannock township, Armstrong county, and as being “ the same land conveyed by Coulter and Buffing-ton to John-Frick.” The mortgage was duly recorded in Armstrong county. After it fell due proceedings were had upon it resulting in a sale of the farm…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Overdeer v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Leidy v. ProctorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Menges v. OysterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hoffman v. BozitskoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962