Fellows v. Loomis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 79, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Oo., Oct. T., 1894, No. 358, on verdict for defendants. Ejectment for sixty-two acres of land in the city of Scranton. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 79, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Oo., Oct. T., 1894, No. 358, on verdict for defendants. Ejectment for sixty-two acres of land in the city of Scranton. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court charged the jury in part as follows: “ In answer to your first question, gentlemen of the jury, If we consider a trust to have been formed between Brown and Fellows, did the selling of the mortgage by Brown to Loomismake the trust between Brown and Fellows null and void ? ’’ I would say, that the selling of the mortgage by Brown…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
This case was before us in 1893 and may be found reported in Fellows v. Loomis, 156 Pa. 74. The complaint then was that the learned trial judge had withdrawn the case from the jury and directed a verdict in favor of the defendants.
The evidence showed that Joseph Fellows was the owner of a tract of land in the city of Scranton underlaid with coal. The coal had been sold to the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Compauy by a previous owner, together with the privilege of using the surface for piling the culm and other refuse brought to the surface in the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jaques v. WeeksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Thompson v. ChristieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Earnest v. HoskinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Horstman v. GerkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Wheeler v. HughesSupreme Court of the United States · 1776
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Roush v. HerbickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Luther v. LutherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Fellows v. LoomisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903