Bellas v. Dewart
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the Common Pleas of Norihumherland county. This was an amicable action of partition between William L. Dewart and Samuel Hunter, plaintiffs, and Hugh Bellas, defendant, in relation to 236 acres and 29 perches of land near Sunbury, surveyed in the name of E. Wallis. The plaintiffs held six undivided sevenths of the premises, under a recent purchase at sheriff’s sale, as the estate of Robert S. Grant, deceased, the youngest son of Thomas Grant, deceased.
Read the full summary
Error, to the Common Pleas of Norihumherland county. This was an amicable action of partition between William L. Dewart and Samuel Hunter, plaintiffs, and Hugh Bellas, defendant, in relation to 236 acres and 29 perches of land near Sunbury, surveyed in the name of E. Wallis. The plaintiffs held six undivided sevenths of the premises, under a recent purchase at sheriff’s sale, as the estate of Robert S. Grant, deceased, the youngest son of Thomas Grant, deceased. The defendant, the other seventh, the estate formerly of George Grant, deceased, the eldest son of Thomas Grant, deceased, purchased…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court, was delivered by
GtXBSON, C. J.
As the first exception is well founded, it is unnecessary to consider the others. The agreement to refer the partition to men chosen by the parties instead of leaving it to the inquest prescribed by the law, was a submission to arbitration after interlocutory judgment; and if there is no statute to support it, the award must fall with it. In Pennsylvania, it-is true, agreements of parties or counsel have been recognised as the law of the case so far as regards questions of right; and they have had an influence even in overturning forms…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gallup v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Pennington v. BowmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- White v. ShriverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834