Hall v. Lacy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Venango county. This was an action of ejectment for nine tracts of land, by Orris Hall and Chapin Hall against George S. Lacy et al. Plaintiffs claimed the whole of two of the tracts, Nos. 3825 and 3826, and the undivided half of the other lands described in the writ. The court ruled that they were entitled only to the undivided half of all the lands described. To this the plaintiffs excepted, and bill was sealed.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Venango county. This was an action of ejectment for nine tracts of land, by Orris Hall and Chapin Hall against George S. Lacy et al. Plaintiffs claimed the whole of two of the tracts, Nos. 3825 and 3826, and the undivided half of the other lands described in the writ. The court ruled that they were entitled only to the undivided half of all the lands described. To this the plaintiffs excepted, and bill was sealed. Verdict was rendered in accordance with instructions of the court, and judgment entered. Plaintiff enforced the judgment, obtained possession, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Strong, J.
We cannot undertake to review this record. The plaintiffs in error recovered a verdict in the court below on the 25th of August 1857, and judgment was entered on the verdict six days afterwards. A writ of habere facias possessionem, with a fi. fa. for costs, was then issued, the costs were collected, and the possession was delivered. After this, it is too late for plaintiffs to complain of the judgment. They have acquiesced in it for years, and they havé taken its fruits. In Smith v. Jack, 2 W. & S. 101, it was held that the suing out…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. JackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lytle Investment Co. v. McMorrisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- Mastin v. MaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915