Reichart v. Castator
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland County. This was an ejectment by Castator and others, who were plaintiffs below, to recover part of a tract of fifty acres lan u, which it was admitted had been duly vested in on & Henry Reichart.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland County. This was an ejectment by Castator and others, who were plaintiffs below, to recover part of a tract of fifty acres lan u, which it was admitted had been duly vested in on & Henry Reichart. The plaintiffs represented the daughters of Henry chart; the defendant, George Reichart, was,his son, and gave in evidence a deed from his father to himself, dated the 29th of December 1803, for the fifty acres, reciting that George had paid sundry debts for his father according to a schedule said to be annexed, (but which was not) and had for a…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
In this case there is a bill of exceptions to the admission of Mary Reichart's deposition as evidence, and also an exception to the opinion of the court on the evidence, in their charge to the jury. Before the deposition was offered, Reichart, the defendant below, had given in evidence a deed from his father Henry Reichart to himself, for the land in dispute. The deed was expressed to be made in consideration of sundry debts paid by the son for the father, and in consideration that the son had, for a long time, supported his father’s wife, and also of 5s. paid by the son to the…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Abney v. Kingsland & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Pringle v. PringleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Buehler v. GloningerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Springer v. DroschIndiana Supreme Court · 1870
- Evans v. DravoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.