Loomis v. M'Clintock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the district court of Allegheny county. Ralph M*Clintock and others, devisees of Jane M’Cullough, against Luke Loomis and John Park. This was an action of ejectment for part of lot No. 386, in the city of Pittsburgh. The plaintiffs claim to recover possession of the property as heirs at law of Sarah Simpson, and devisees of Jane M’Cullough, deceased.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the district court of Allegheny county. Ralph M*Clintock and others, devisees of Jane M’Cullough, against Luke Loomis and John Park. This was an action of ejectment for part of lot No. 386, in the city of Pittsburgh. The plaintiffs claim to recover possession of the property as heirs at law of Sarah Simpson, and devisees of Jane M’Cullough, deceased. The title of the plaintiffs has been deduced as follows:— March 1, 1807, Jacob Nigley and wife conveyed 44 feet on Wood street, including the ground in dispute to Joseph M’Clintock. November 9, 1810, the same 44 feet of ground were…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
This is not the case of a- defective execution of a .power, as has been contended; for the executors had no power to sell until a certain period, which, had not arrived-at the time of the sale. The sale is therefore void, as is clearly shown by Justice Dallas, whose opinion we adopt. Here, time is not matter of form, but-substance; and the powers of the .executors depend on the intention of the testator, which w,as .to postpone the sale until his daugin ter Catherine attained the age of twenty-one years, or, in case of her death, until she…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Stewart v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Satterfield v. TateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Gast v. PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Rice v. TavernierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1863