Hamaker v. Whitecar
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County. J udgment was entered in the Court below on bond and warrant of attorney given by David Hamaker, secured by mortgage given on and to secure part of the purchase money of certain land described as follows : “All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situate,- lying and being in the township of Belfast, in the county of Fulton and State of Pennsylvania aforesaid, surveyed to McHorton Moore, containing,…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County. J udgment was entered in the Court below on bond and warrant of attorney given by David Hamaker, secured by mortgage given on and to secure part of the purchase money of certain land described as follows : “All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situate,- lying and being in the township of Belfast, in the county of Fulton and State of Pennsylvania aforesaid, surveyed to McHorton Moore, containing, according to said survey, 810 acres (be the same more or less) of land, with the usual allowance of six per cent, for…
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court below on February 10, 1879, in the following opinion by
Trunkey, J.:
The depositions of Fore and McDonald were rightly received, as they were pertinent to the issue. No objection was made, save for irrelevancy. Had objection been made specially to the portions wherein the witnesses expressed their belief as to the identity of the McHorton Moore tract and Moore Wharton tract, doubtless it would have been sustained.
*124The main question is, was there sufficient evidence of the invalidity of the tax title ? Although the burden was upon the defendant…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kennedy v. DailySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Sheaffer v. M'KabeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Fish v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836