Lodge v. Patterson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Mercer county. This was an ejectment brought by the heirs of Nathan Patterson deceased, the defendants in error, against Lodge and Lodge, who put in the plea of Not guilty, and took defence for the undivided four-sevenths of two hundred acres, being the shares of Andrew Patterson and three others, heirs of John Patterson deceased, who owned and died seised of the tract.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Mercer county. This was an ejectment brought by the heirs of Nathan Patterson deceased, the defendants in error, against Lodge and Lodge, who put in the plea of Not guilty, and took defence for the undivided four-sevenths of two hundred acres, being the shares of Andrew Patterson and three others, heirs of John Patterson deceased, who owned and died seised of the tract. The plaintiffs proved that Nathan Patterson deceased bought an improvement right from Thomas Laughead, and paid 500 dollars for it; stating that the purchase was made for himself and his brother…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
In this ejectment the defendants, Lodge and Lodge, entered on the record the plea of Not guilty; and moreover, that they took defence for four undivided seventh parts of two hundred acres, being the shares of Andrew Patterson and three others, heirs of John Patterson deceased, who owned and died seised thereof. They offered Nathan Patterson, a son of Andrew Patterson, as a witness in their behalf. The defendants having set up the title of John Patterson’s heirs by way of defence against the plaintiff’s claim, the question trying in this…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Elder v. McClaskeyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
- Coogler v. RogersSupreme Court of Florida · 1889
- Winterburn v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Cooey v. PorterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- Warfield v. LindellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.