Pratt v. McCawley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. These were five actions of ejectment. In each ease John McCawley was plaintiff. They were severally brought against S. Murphey, William R. White, D. Taylor Pratt, Maurice White and others, and Lydia M. Weaver. They were brought for the one undivided third part of five several contiguous lots of ground in the city of Philadelphia. McCawley, the plaintiff below, claimed an undivided third of the several lots.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. These were five actions of ejectment. In each ease John McCawley was plaintiff. They were severally brought against S. Murphey, William R. White, D. Taylor Pratt, Maurice White and others, and Lydia M. Weaver. They were brought for the one undivided third part of five several contiguous lots of ground in the city of Philadelphia. McCawley, the plaintiff below, claimed an undivided third of the several lots. Under the view taken by the Court, it is not necessary to state the chain of title back of the year 1823. At that time Mrs. Mary Tucker was the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered, by
Lowrie, J.
The argument of the plaintiffs in error claims that, by the deed of 1810, of James Tucker to Jarius Hutchinson, Mary Tucker obtained an equitable fee in four of these lots, the other one having been acquired in legal fee by another title not in dispute. We get right into the heart of this case by assuming this position. It brings us at once to the construction of the settlement deed of 1823, which was preliminary to the marriage of Mary Tucker with John Towers. By that deed she conveyed these lots to Joseph Reed, his heirs and assigns, in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lippincott's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902