Cubbage v. Nesmith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Alleghany county. The plaintiff in error, William Cubbage, was the plaintiff below, and brought an ejectment to recover from the defendant, Thomas •Nesmith, part of lot No. 44, on Penn street in the city of Pittsburgh.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Alleghany county. The plaintiff in error, William Cubbage, was the plaintiff below, and brought an ejectment to recover from the defendant, Thomas •Nesmith, part of lot No. 44, on Penn street in the city of Pittsburgh. The plaintiff gave in evidence the petition of Thomas Wallace to the orphan’s court of Alleghany county, at April term 1811, setting forth that he was the grantee of Henry Lutgen and Mary his wife, late Mary Laughrey, and John M’Farland and Jane his wife, late Jane Laughrey, which said Mary and Jane, together with Daniel and Nancy (Nancy.still being…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
The naked question on this record is, whether a recognizance in the orphan’s court binds the whole estate, or only the undivided share of the child as it existed before it was vested in the cognizor by the decree of confirmation. The doubt was formerly the other way, whether it did not bind all the cognizor’s land taken at the valuation or acquired previously; and that doubt was not resolved till it was settled in Allen v. Reesor, 16 Serg. & Rawle 10, that such recognizance binds no more than the land taken by the decree ; but the lien has…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Allen v. ReesorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hostetter v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884