Collins v. Beatty
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 394, Jan. T., 1891, by-plaintiffs, Joseph Collins et al., from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., on verdict for defendant, James Beatty, Sr. Trespass quare clausum fregit. The facts as stated by the court below (Weand, J.) in refusing a motion for a new trial were as follows : “ It appears that both parties had bought the lots in question under a parol contract from one Fulton, Beatty’s being prior.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 394, Jan. T., 1891, by-plaintiffs, Joseph Collins et al., from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., on verdict for defendant, James Beatty, Sr. Trespass quare clausum fregit. The facts as stated by the court below (Weand, J.) in refusing a motion for a new trial were as follows : “ It appears that both parties had bought the lots in question under a parol contract from one Fulton, Beatty’s being prior. No deed had passed to either, but both had paid part of the purchase money. Beatty, however, went into possession, or at least exercised acts of ownership by doing the very acts here…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We do not think the court below erred in giving the jury a binding instruction in favor of the defendant. The action was trespass quare clausum fregit, and the plea “ not guilty.” The evidence showed the defendant to have been in possession of the locus in quo at the time the alleged trespass was committed, and for some years before. Under such circumstances the action of trespass cannot be maintained.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Weisfield v. BealeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Humes v. KramerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Griffin v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Hartley v. SpencerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Busch v. CalhounSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.