Livezey v. Gorgas
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error from the Supreme Court. A declaration was filed in the court below, by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendants, in which they set forth, “ that on the-- of- 1790, and thence continually, they have been seised in their desmesne as of fee, of and in a certain water grist-mill, with the appurtenances, upon Wissahickon creek, in Philadelphia county; that the defendants, all the time aforesaid, were, and still are, in possession of a certain other water…
Read the full summary
In Error from the Supreme Court. A declaration was filed in the court below, by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendants, in which they set forth, “ that on the-- of- 1790, and thence continually, they have been seised in their desmesne as of fee, of and in a certain water grist-mill, with the appurtenances, upon Wissahickon creek, in Philadelphia county; that the defendants, all the time aforesaid, were, and still are, in possession of a certain other water grist-mill, with the appurtenances, upon the same creek, and below the mill of the plaintiffs ; and that the defendants,…
1Opinion of the Court
At an adjourned session, held on the 17th of January 1800, the judges delivered their opinion, seriatim,, but concurred in this general result.
By the Court.
— The agreement of the parties constituted the referees *75] the exclusive judges of the subject submitted to their decision. It gave them, however, no power to delegate their trust and authority to others; nor to erect a new and arbitrary tribunal, to determine future controversies. If the first set of referees could proceed in this way, the set empowered by them, might exercise a similar authority ; and so, ad infinitum, compel the parties,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Livezey v. GorgasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1809
- Livezey v. GorgasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1808
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nandlal v. Oregon Cascade Properties LLCDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021