Baldwin v. Siner
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 163, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., April T., 1900, No. 53, on verdict for defendant in case of Zachary T. Baldwin v. John T. Siner. Assumpsit to collect a share of money charged on land. Before Hemphill, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the suit was brought to recover the sum of 1782, which was a portion of the sum of $4,692, charged on land as a dowry in partition proceedings in the estate of Harland Baldwin, deceased.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 163, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., April T., 1900, No. 53, on verdict for defendant in case of Zachary T. Baldwin v. John T. Siner. Assumpsit to collect a share of money charged on land. Before Hemphill, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the suit was brought to recover the sum of 1782, which was a portion of the sum of $4,692, charged on land as a dowry in partition proceedings in the estate of Harland Baldwin, deceased. The land had been allotted to Zachary Baldwin in the partition proceedings, and was sold as his land at a sheriff’s sale, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
Harland Baldwin, being the owner of a certain farm, died intestate in 1869. He left a widow and six children, of whom Zachary was one. In partition proceedings in 1869, Zachary accepted the land in question at the valuation, and entered into a recognizance for the payment of $4,692 at his mother’s death to the heirs and legal representatives of Harland Baldwin, deceased. He afterward conveyed the land to his mother, subject to the payment of the $4,692 “ to the heirs and legal representatives of Harland Baldwin, deceased, at the death of his widow, in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fretz v. HellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Dech v. GluckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Hollenberger v. Yaukey, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County1891
- Erb v. HustonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Estate of DullSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Haines v. EshlemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904