Fenn v. Blanchard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
p. Ejectment of a house and lot in the city of Philadelphia. The cause was tried at the sittings in November last, when the- jury found a verdict as follows : ' “We find for the plaintiff, with six cents damages and six cents costs, provided the court deems the deed of settlement of the 9th June 1788, a good and valid act, which deed the jury find in her verba; but say, that they are not agreed whether there was a contract before marriage.”
Read the full summary
p. Ejectment of a house and lot in the city of Philadelphia. The cause was tried at the sittings in November last, when the- jury found a verdict as follows : ' “We find for the plaintiff, with six cents damages and six cents costs, provided the court deems the deed of settlement of the 9th June 1788, a good and valid act, which deed the jury find in her verba; but say, that they are not agreed whether there was a contract before marriage.” This deed was made between Walter Stewart of one part and Blair M’Olenachan and Alexander Nesbit of the other part whereby, the said Walter in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
This verdict is substantially good, though inarti ficially worded by the jury. It only finds for the plaintiff, if the deed of settlement was legal and good. Judging on the words of it, we can have no difficulty about it; and if we could be allowed to travel out of the words of it, we had no doubts at the trial, that it was executed when General Stewart had a clear estate, and that it was good as to his subsequent creditors. But in this stage of the cause, the laiv forbids all such inquires, and we are confined to the facts found.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wallingford v. DunlapSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Edgar v. KlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Holbrook v. ColburnCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1854