Weddle v. Robertson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of PVestmoreland county. Andrew Robertson’s administrators, cum testamento annexo, against Joseph P. Weddle. This was an action of ejectment, in which the only question argued in this court, was on the subject of the statute of limitations, arising out of the charge of the court, as follows: White, president.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of PVestmoreland county. Andrew Robertson’s administrators, cum testamento annexo, against Joseph P. Weddle. This was an action of ejectment, in which the only question argued in this court, was on the subject of the statute of limitations, arising out of the charge of the court, as follows: White, president. If the possession was taken by Robertson, in 1791, Jesse, Joseph, and Peter Weddle, were all minors; and they would have a right to bring an action or make an entry, at any time within ten years next, after attaining full age; notwithstanding the adverse…
1Per curiam
The statute is too explicit to allow an infant ten years after the expiration of twenty-one years from the period of adverse possession; the words are, “ten years after attaining full age.” An infant, therefore, can in no case have more than thirty-*487one or less than twenty-one; but his privilege may be graduated by circumstances to any intermediate period. Thus, adverse possession taken six months after his birth, would give him thirty years and six months to bring his action; but taken six months before the period' of full age, would give him, not merely the ten years allowed by the saving*…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Riggs v. FullerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Marple v. MyersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
- Irvine v. SibbettsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856