Brown v. Arbunkle
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
At law. This was an ejectment to recover 400 acres of land, within the triangle lying north and west of the Ohio, Alleghany and Conewango. The plaintiff produced five warrants, granted to the Population Company in different names, with no other description than one adjoining the other; neither of which, however, was the leading warrant.
Read the full summary
At law. This was an ejectment to recover 400 acres of land, within the triangle lying north and west of the Ohio, Alleghany and Conewango. The plaintiff produced five warrants, granted to the Population Company in different names, with no other description than one adjoining the other; neither of which, however, was the leading warrant. The warrants were dated 13th April, 1792. On the 6th of June, 1792, the purchase money was paid for three hundred and ninety warrants, (of which these were a part,) by the Population Company, all adjoining each other; which were sufficient to cover the whole…
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,
charged the jury. As to the last objection, we can only repeat the reasons which induced us to consider this case as within the jurisdiction of the court, when the motion was made, at the last term, to strike it off. If this deed be void, it must be for some legal defect in it, or because it was made in fraud of the law, which gives jurisdiction to the circuit court. In Hurst v. McNeil the deed was considered void, because not made with the knowledge or consent of the grantee, as to all but John, who had an equitable estate to oné-third of the land. In this case,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- New Hampshire Land Co. v. TiltonUnited States Circuit Court · 1884