Root v. Crock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from tbe District Court of PMladelpMa. Feb. 28. Ejectment. Root, the plaintiff, claimed a small strip of land adjoining the defendant’s land, under a conveyance from Hopple in 1841. The defendant proved that in September, 1840, J. Root, the plaintiff, joined in a deed with Ms wife, who, with the other parties thereto, including Crock, the defendant, were heirs and devisees of George Crock.
Read the full summary
In error from tbe District Court of PMladelpMa. Feb. 28. Ejectment. Root, the plaintiff, claimed a small strip of land adjoining the defendant’s land, under a conveyance from Hopple in 1841. The defendant proved that in September, 1840, J. Root, the plaintiff, joined in a deed with Ms wife, who, with the other parties thereto, including Crock, the defendant, were heirs and devisees of George Crock. In this deed they conveyed certain lands to Susannah Crock, of which the boundary line in question was thus described: “to a post, thence by A. Leddon’s land, south 53° 20', %oest, 52J perches, to…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
I agree that if the question of boundary had been between strangers, the weight of evidence was clearly in favour of the line delineated by Henry Haines. It was an ancient boundary that the law would not have disturbed. But the heirs of George Crock, with a view to a partition among themselves, made a new boundary, which encroached from one to two feet on the Hopple tract, to which Root was a party. He cannot, by his subsequent purchase of the Hopple tract, change what was established by the amicable partition. An estoppel is where a man is concluded, by his own act or acceptance, to say the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Eisenbrown v. BurnsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906