Bixler v. Gilleland
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Fayette county. Oct. 29. A'few facts in addition to those stated by his honour, (Burnside, J.,) are all that it is deemed proper to mention'here.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Fayette county. Oct. 29. A'few facts in addition to those stated by his honour, (Burnside, J.,) are all that it is deemed proper to mention'here. The articles between Gilleland and Grove were dated in the Feb. preceding, the date of the deed to Gilleland. - In the petition of the plaintiff below,.for a supersedeas of the commission, it is .stated.,' that the trustees never acted, and that since February, 1842, he had.been a reformed and sober man; in proof of which, he produced.-certificates of divers .persons. ' - • The abstract of title, referred to by the…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
Onthe trial of this ejectment in the Comm on Pleas, Gilleland, the plaintiff, showed title in Henry Sprinkle, and then gave evidence, that Michael' Sprinkle and Jacob Sprinkle, his devisees, on the 29th October, 1831, conveyed to him the premises in question.
The defendants admitted they were in possession, and gave in evidence an article of agreement for the sale of the premises, by Gilleland to one Grove, for the consideration of $600. William Boyd’s deposition was then read: he proved that he and another were called on to .settle the accounts between Grove and Gillelandthat it appeared that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sayles v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Clark v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mitchell v. SpauldingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902