Adamson v. Potts
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Indiana county. Oct. 20. This was an ejectment tried at a special court, before Grier, P. J. The plaintiff and defendant respectively claimed under adjoining warrants, two tracts of land, included in a survey of a block of twenty-five warrants, of which the evidence was very distinct that the interior lines had not been marked on the original survey of the block.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Indiana county. Oct. 20. This was an ejectment tried at a special court, before Grier, P. J. The plaintiff and defendant respectively claimed under adjoining warrants, two tracts of land, included in a survey of a block of twenty-five warrants, of which the evidence was very distinct that the interior lines had not been marked on the original survey of the block. The plaintiff gave evidence of the location of his line on the land, according .to the warrant and draft returned; the defendant claimed title to a line marked on the land included in the plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
In Perkins v. Gay, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 327, the Common Pleas laid it dowm in general terms, that if, at the time of an agreement to establish a consentable line, the parties labour under a mistake as to their respective rights, they w’ill not be bound. The Supreme Court held this instruction to be erroneous; they said, no boundary of the sort could in any case prevail, if it wrere law, for the consideration of the agreement is, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the settlement of a dispute arising from ignorance-of the parties, or misapprehension on both sides. If there had been evidence…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Perkins v. GaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817
3Cited by1 opinion
- Newton v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909