Hill v. Roderick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Fayette. Oct. 26. This was an ejectment for a strip of land between the lands of which the parties were in undisputed possession. •• The case was this: In 1785, two adjoining surveys were made for John Tate, the elder, for which a patent issued, calling for 320-|-acres; but, by a recent survey, it had been ascertained to contain 372J acres.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Fayette. Oct. 26. This was an ejectment for a strip of land between the lands of which the parties were in undisputed possession. •• The case was this: In 1785, two adjoining surveys were made for John Tate, the elder, for which a patent issued, calling for 320-|-acres; but, by a recent survey, it had been ascertained to contain 372J acres. In 1790 and 1799, John Tate devised: “I further will and devise that my son Robert Tate shall have that part of the plantation whereon-1 now live, to contain one hundred and seventy acres, to live upon and make use of…
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, J.,
(after stating the devise,- and the running of the division line in 1800.) — At the time this line was established, Robert’s children were infants j'but after his death, and subsequent to their attaining full age, they recognised it as- being the division *98line ascertaining the land devised to them in remainder. They have never, in any way, called it into question, for the present litigation, which seeks to abrogate it, was originated by one claiming title under John Tate to the purpart assigned to him. The point presented for determination is, whether Robert’s children were bound by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hill v. RoderickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842