Bennett v. Hethington
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to Lycoming county, it appeared that George Bennett, the plaintiff in this ejectment, claimed an undivided third part of two hundred and forty acres of land in Nippernose township, the premises in dispute, under an improvement alleged to have been made by John Huff, in 1795, and conveyed by him by articles of agreement, in 1797, to George Bennett, who remained in possession until a judgment by default was obtained against him, when he was…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to Lycoming county, it appeared that George Bennett, the plaintiff in this ejectment, claimed an undivided third part of two hundred and forty acres of land in Nippernose township, the premises in dispute, under an improvement alleged to have been made by John Huff, in 1795, and conveyed by him by articles of agreement, in 1797, to George Bennett, who remained in possession until a judgment by default was obtained against him, when he was dispossessed. After having examined a witness as to the alleged improvement, the plaintiff proposed to prove by him the…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
It has never before been doubted that the declarations of a party, at the time, are evidence of the intent with which he entered; and, this is all that is necessary to be said in respect of the first point.
The question, whether a tenant in common be a competent witness for his co-tenant, in an ejectment by the latter, has not been decided in terms; but, a principle broad enough .to cover the particular case, has been established by many decisions. The beginning of this principle, is an epoch in the law; previous to which, questions of competency depending on interest, were decided on subtle…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kifer v. BrennemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
- Davis v. SpoonerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1825
- Davis v. SpoonerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1825