Hinckle v. Riffert
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Isr error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of Columbia county. July 9. This was an action of ejectment, brought in 1819, by Ursula Riffert, Joseph Long, Joseph Pawling, and Sarah, his wife, late Sarah Riffert, David Kirkpatrick, and Ann, his wife, late Ann Riffert, Jacob Huntzinger, George Huntzinger, John Huntzinger, Henry Huntzinger, Michael Huntzinger, Daniel Huntzinger, John Faust, and Rosanna, his wife, late Rosanna Huntzinger, Daniel Drehr, and Magdalena, his wife, late…
Read the full summary
Isr error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of Columbia county. July 9. This was an action of ejectment, brought in 1819, by Ursula Riffert, Joseph Long, Joseph Pawling, and Sarah, his wife, late Sarah Riffert, David Kirkpatrick, and Ann, his wife, late Ann Riffert, Jacob Huntzinger, George Huntzinger, John Huntzinger, Henry Huntzinger, Michael Huntzinger, Daniel Huntzinger, John Faust, and Rosanna, his wife, late Rosanna Huntzinger, Daniel Drehr, and Magdalena, his wife, late Magdalena Huntzinger, and John' Boyer, and Catherine] Ms wife, late Catherine Huntzinger, against Hinekle, the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
In the case of Pringle and others against Graw, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 536, it was decided by this court, that a widow could not join with the heirs, in maintaining ejectment under the act of 1806: she being neither joint-tenant, coparcener, nor tenant in common. And that an ejectment, under such circumstances, could not be supported at common law. It has also beon ruled by this court, that an action of partition, under like circumstances, could not be sustained. There is no doubt whatever, but that the joining of too many persons as plaintiffs is irregular and vicious; and, where it appears on the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pringle v. GawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1820