Wells v. Van Dyke
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford county : Of January Term 1885, No. 399. Ejectment, by Charles Wells and Amelia Wells his wife, for her use, against George H. Van Dyke for a messuage and tract of land in Ulster township, Bradford county, Pennsylvania, containing one fourth of an acre. Plea, not guilty.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford county : Of January Term 1885, No. 399. Ejectment, by Charles Wells and Amelia Wells his wife, for her use, against George H. Van Dyke for a messuage and tract of land in Ulster township, Bradford county, Pennsylvania, containing one fourth of an acre. Plea, not guilty. On the trial, before Morrow, P. J., the following facts appeared : — On September 17th, 1872, Amelia Wells was the owner of the premises in controversy which were then unimproved. By deed of that date, acknowledged September 25th, 1872, she and her husband conveyed this tract to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
The ordinary rule in respect to improvements is that the mortgagee in possession will not be allowed for them further than is necessary to keep the premises in proper repair. This rule is not inflexible, for the allowance may be regulated by the justice and equity arising out of the circumstances of eaclr particular cause. Nor will the mortgagee be held to proof of absolute necessity: Harper’s Appeal, 64 Pa. St., 315. While charges for repairs for the purpose of ornament, or the comfort of the mortgagee, or new buildings unnecessary for the preservation of the estate, will not be allowed,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Bulger v. Wilderman and PleetSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Provident Trust Co. v. Judicial B. & L. Assn.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Integrity Trust Co. v. St. Rita B. & L. Assn.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Peebles's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Malamut v. HainesDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.