Martin v. Martin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR.' Ejectment by William Martin, against' Michael Martin. . The defendant in error, was plaintiff below in ejectment for land thus described: — A tract of land'situated in Cranberry township in said county, containing two hundred acres, be the same more or less; adjoining lands of Robert Boggs, Esq., John Burin, William Eakins, Jane Knox, and other lands of the plaintiff.”
Read the full summary
IN ERROR.' Ejectment by William Martin, against' Michael Martin. . The defendant in error, was plaintiff below in ejectment for land thus described: — A tract of land'situated in Cranberry township in said county, containing two hundred acres, be the same more or less; adjoining lands of Robert Boggs, Esq., John Burin, William Eakins, Jane Knox, and other lands of the plaintiff.” The-verdict was as follows: “for the plaintiff, one half of the survey according to a draft signed by Hugh, Conway, deputy surveyor, and filed in this case; the land to be laid off according to quantity and quality,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the majority of the cou'rt was given by
Tod, J.
A verdict, like an award, ought to haye in it something final and conclusive. The wording of it must not be such as of itself to create disputes. 'An ejectment brought for land, describing it as in this yerdict would bo clearly wrong, because in case of re*432eovery the sheriff could not know how to deliver possession. Here the execution must follow the terms of the verdict,, and be extremely puzzling to a mere executive officer.. Had the jury said what half, what side, or what end of the tract, or by what lines it was to be laid off,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wilkin v. WilkinNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
- Coxe v. SmithNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kelly v. EichmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838