Lacy v. Green
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Warren county: Of May Term 1877, No. 26. Assumpsit by Luther Green et at, administrators of Joseph Green, deceased, against George S. Lacy, for the use and occupation of a strip of land along the Tionesta creek.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Warren county: Of May Term 1877, No. 26. Assumpsit by Luther Green et at, administrators of Joseph Green, deceased, against George S. Lacy, for the use and occupation of a strip of land along the Tionesta creek. On the 19th of August 1864, Lacy’s wife and her sister, Miss Foord, sold certain lands in the locality of this strip in dispute, including the Hall & Lacy Mills, on the Tionesta creek, a short distance below the mouth of Raccoon creek, to the Tionesta Oil, Lumber and Mining Company, under whom the plaintiff’s intestate claimed. On the head waters…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Woodward
This cause has been twice argued. While the amount in controversy in it is insignificant, the question it presents is important, for the right to the possession of the piece of land for the use and occupation of which the plaintiffs have sought to recover is dependent on its determination. It has been considered, therefore, with the care and deliberation demanded by the value of the ultimate interests involved.
Previously to the 19th of August 1864, the wife of the defendant below and her sister had been the owners of a tract of land on Tionesta creek, which they conveyed that day to the…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Wilson v. WernwagSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Riggs v. New CastleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Meigs v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Winston-Salem Fire Fighters Club, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Cuthrell v. Milwaukee Mechanics InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.