Haines v. Eshleman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 226, Oct. T., 1902, by Emeline H. Brown, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1902, No. 40, against plaintiff on case stated in suit of William C. Haines et al., Priscilla H. Bailey, Mary S.'Carter, James L. Haines and Emeline H. Brown v. B. Frank Eshleman. Case stated to determine the ownership of a fund charged on land. Before Landis, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 226, Oct. T., 1902, by Emeline H. Brown, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1902, No. 40, against plaintiff on case stated in suit of William C. Haines et al., Priscilla H. Bailey, Mary S.'Carter, James L. Haines and Emeline H. Brown v. B. Frank Eshleman. Case stated to determine the ownership of a fund charged on land. Before Landis, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court entered judgment for William C. Haines, Priscilla H. Bailey, Mary S. Parker and James L. Haines. Emeline H. Brown appealed. Error assigned was the judgment of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
Mark Haines died in 1870 intestate and seized in fee of a farm containing 276 aeres and also of an undivided half of a smaller tract. In 1873 all of his five children, except Emeline H. Brown, the appellant, joined in a general warranty deed of these tracts to her husband for the consideration of $8,333.33^, then paid, and “the further sum of $4,166.66f-, hereinafter charged,” etc. This reference in the consideration clause is to that part of the habendum clause which reads: “ Subject to and charged, however, with the sum of four thousand one hundred and sixty-six and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dech v. GluckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Baldwin v. SinerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Steckel v. KoonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883