Hawn v. Norris
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. This was an ejectment brought in the Common Pleas of Mifflin county, in the form devised by the act of 21st March 1806. The writ described the premises as “ a tract of land situate in Armagh township in the said county, containing fourteen acres and sixty-three perches or thereabouts, bounded by land of the said John Hawn,” the defendant, which was precisely the kind of description set out in the formule given by the act of assembly.
Read the full summary
In Error. This was an ejectment brought in the Common Pleas of Mifflin county, in the form devised by the act of 21st March 1806. The writ described the premises as “ a tract of land situate in Armagh township in the said county, containing fourteen acres and sixty-three perches or thereabouts, bounded by land of the said John Hawn,” the defendant, which was precisely the kind of description set out in the formule given by the act of assembly. The plaintiffs claimed under articles of agreement dated the 26th March 1810 between John Hawn and William Norris, by which the former sold to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman, C. J.,
delivered the court’s opinion.
If this court had the power to form the writ of ejectment, the remarks of Mr. Watts might have weight; but it is not so. The legislature have fixed the form, and said that no other shall be pursued. Has that form been pursued? I think it *has. In the form prescribed by the act of assembly, which has been exactly followed here, there are blanks left for the township, for the quantity of acres, and for the names of the person or persons who own the adjoining lands. All these blanks have been filled up. It is not for us to say that the form…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Barclay v. HowellUnited States Circuit Court · 1829