Kerr v. Chess
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the district court of Allegheny county. David Chess against James Kerr. Ejectment for thirty acres of land. The only question argued in this case arose out of the evidence given by the defendant of the record of an action of trespass between the same parties, in which a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff upon the p.iea of liberum, tenementum and replication thereto as follows: “ And the said David Chess, protesting that the said place in which the…
Read the full summary
ERROR to the district court of Allegheny county. David Chess against James Kerr. Ejectment for thirty acres of land. The only question argued in this case arose out of the evidence given by the defendant of the record of an action of trespass between the same parties, in which a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff upon the p.iea of liberum, tenementum and replication thereto as follows: “ And the said David Chess, protesting that the said place in which the breaking, entering, cutting down of timber, carrying away of rails, See., in the said plaintiff’s declaration said to be…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
It seems to be unsettled whether a verdict on a traverse of liberum tenementum is conclusive of the title in ejectment; and considerable doubt has been cast on it by dicta of the judges, in Gilpin v. Meredith, 9 Price 146; S. C., 2 Eng. Exch. Rep. 416. It. will be sufficient to show that the point is not raised by the record at bar.
A novel assignment presupposes that two or more actual or ostensible trespasses have been committed ; and it tacitly confesses the matter of the plea as to one of them. It is an abandonment of a trespass…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Stevens v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Bolinger v. BarnhardtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Shettlesworth v. HugheyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1856