Watson v. Gilday
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Two bills of exceptions, tendered by the plaintiff in error, the defendant below, one to the admission of evidence, the other to the charge^ of the court, were returned with the record of this ejectment, on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county. Both the plaintiff and defendant claimed the land in dispute by settlement and improvement.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Two bills of exceptions, tendered by the plaintiff in error, the defendant below, one to the admission of evidence, the other to the charge^ of the court, were returned with the record of this ejectment, on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county. Both the plaintiff and defendant claimed the land in dispute by settlement and improvement. In the month of September or October, 1797, the plaintiff, William Gilday, went on the land, cleared out a bottom, cut logs, raised a house, moved into it with his family, and continued to i eside there ever since. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan J.
The claims of both parties arise from the same source, settlement on a piece of land of 160 acres, supposed to have remained unappropriated. They depended not on priority of settlement only, but an adjustment of boundaries, and an agreement for consentible lines; a very usual and useful course pursued by original settlérs, and which courts of justice have always countenanced, on this imperfect and inchoate right. It was on the existence and validity of such agreement, the merits of the controversy between these parties depended. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Bowne v. HinmanNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- Lessee of Cox v. CromwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
- Lessee of Woods v. GalbreathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1798
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brentlinger v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
- Pfoutz v. SteelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834