Bradford v. Dornseif
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Northumberland county; held by Chief 'Justice Gibson. This was an action of ejectment, in which Thomas Bradford was plaintiff, and Henry jDornseif and others were defendants; ih which all the points , arose which were discussed in the preceding case of Hubley v. K&yser, and one moré; — which was, whether the 3d Section of the act of 3d April, 1804, was not an effectual fear to the plaintiff’s recovery: — the defendant having been in…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Northumberland county; held by Chief 'Justice Gibson. This was an action of ejectment, in which Thomas Bradford was plaintiff, and Henry jDornseif and others were defendants; ih which all the points , arose which were discussed in the preceding case of Hubley v. K&yser, and one moré; — which was, whether the 3d Section of the act of 3d April, 1804, was not an effectual fear to the plaintiff’s recovery: — the defendant having been in pos-sessión of the land, under a sale for taxes made to him in Í806, for inore than five years after the sale and before this…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Huston J.
-This case depended on the construction of the clause in the 3d section of the act of 3d April, 1804, limiting the time within which actions can be brought for the recovery of lands sold for taxes. This law has received a construction from this Court in Parish v. Stevens, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 298. This decision gave iteffect in all cases. Then in 8 Serg. & Rawle, 357, Waln v. Shearman, its operation was confined to Cases in which the purchaser had taken possession, which led to passing the act of 29th March, 1824, which limited the time of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Waln v. ShearmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
- Parish v. StevensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817