Maclay's Lessee v. Work
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
[For former reports of this case, see 5 Binn. 154, 2 Serg. & Bawle, 415.] Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county. Ejectment by William Maclay, plaintiff in error, against Samuel Work and Thomas Wilson, in which a verdict and judgment were rendered in favour of the defendants in the court below, and were now removed by writ of error. On the trial in thacourt b$low,' the defendants offered in evidence a letter from.
Read the full summary
[For former reports of this case, see 5 Binn. 154, 2 Serg. & Bawle, 415.] Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county. Ejectment by William Maclay, plaintiff in error, against Samuel Work and Thomas Wilson, in which a verdict and judgment were rendered in favour of the defendants in the court below, and were now removed by writ of error. On the trial in thacourt b$low,' the defendants offered in evidence a letter from. Casper Weitzel to William Maclay, dated the 26th March, 1775, which was objected to by the plaintiff, and admitted by the court, on the ground that it had been…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, J.
There are a variety -of instances in which the acts of a party are held to be equivalent to an admission of facts; such as acting in an office or particular capacity, which will dispense with the necessity of strict proof that the party was regularly commissioned; taking a lease, which is an admission of the landlord’s title; and many others. A recital in a deed which, on the same principle, is evidence against the grantor, is nothing more than an affirmation of the fact recited; and I can see no reason why the affirmation of a fact in a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Stockton & Stokes v. DemuthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Craig v. CraigSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832