Lessee of Montgomery v. Dickey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Ejectment for 100 acres of land in Peters township. The dispute turned on this point, whether a survey made by George Smith, on the 24th September 1744 for John Taylor, under a warrant dated 10th November 1742, included certain 26| acres of land, being the premises in question'. If they were excluded, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. ■ To prove this, the plaintiff offered in evidence the deposition of Robert Wilson and Matthew Wilson (the former of whom is .since dead,…
Read the full summary
Ejectment for 100 acres of land in Peters township. The dispute turned on this point, whether a survey made by George Smith, on the 24th September 1744 for John Taylor, under a warrant dated 10th November 1742, included certain 26| acres of land, being the premises in question'. If they were excluded, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. ■ To prove this, the plaintiff offered in evidence the deposition of Robert Wilson and Matthew Wilson (the former of whom is .since dead, and the latter unable to attend the court,) taken before the present action was brought by the agent'of the- plaintiff,…
1Per curiam
The present dispute is in fact a question of boundary, depending on the lines originally run by George Smith. Considered in this view, the depositions offered are much better evidence than general reputation or hearsay; and the rules of evidence as to pedigree as well as to boundary, are very lax, from the nature of the two cases. It must be obvious, that when the country becomes cleared and in a state of improvement, it is oftentimes difficult to trace the lines of a survey made in early times. The argument ex necessitate rei will therefore apply. Here what was sworn was in the presence of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Morton v. FolgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860