Trustees of the Western University of Pennsylvania v. Robinson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. From the record of this case, returned on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, it appeared, that it was an ejectment for forty acres of land near the town of Allegheny. The plaintiffs below, who were also plaintiffs in error, claimed under a patent from the commonwealth, in pursuance of an act of assembly, passed Feb.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. From the record of this case, returned on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, it appeared, that it was an ejectment for forty acres of land near the town of Allegheny. The plaintiffs below, who were also plaintiffs in error, claimed under a patent from the commonwealth, in pursuance of an act of assembly, passed Feb. IS, 1S19, by the third section of which it was enacted, “that forty acres of the vacant land belonging to the commonwealth, bounded by, or adjoining, the out-lots of the town of Allegheny, be and they are hereby granted to the trustees of…
1Opinion of the Court
TilgiuiaN, C. J.,
(after stating the case,) delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
The first point made by the plaintiff’s counsel, is, that the right of common was not confined to the purchasers of the town and out-lots, but was reserved for the use of all the citizens of the state; consequently, it was the property of the state, and subject to be disposed of, at the pleasure of the legislature. But it really appears to me, that the meaning of the law is too plain to admit of argument. When a reservation was intended, for the use of the state, it was so expressed. The land necessary…
2Cited by3 opinions
- John P. Van Ness, and Marcla His Wife v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Board of Common Council of the City of Washington, and the United States of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Carr v. WallaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Wagers v. DickeyOhio Supreme Court · 1848