Wells v. Becker
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 37, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Bradford Co., May T., 1901, No. 258, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Levi Wells v. J. J. Becker and C. W. Newman. Assumpsit for'rent.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 37, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Bradford Co., May T., 1901, No. 258, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Levi Wells v. J. J. Becker and C. W. Newman. Assumpsit for'rent. Before Fanning, P. J. At the trial defendant presented the following point: That under all the evidence in the case the plaintiff cannot recover: Answer; We decline to so charge you, but reserve a question of law, in form as follows : It is conceded that from November 1, 1898, to November 1, 1899, Levi Wells, the plaintiff, was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The only effect of the statute of 4 and 5 Anne,- chapter 16, section 27, so far as it relates to joint tenants and tenants in common was to give a right of action of account to one joint tenant or tenant in common against- his cotenant “ as bailiff for receiving more than comes to his just share or proportion:” Filbert v. Huff, 42 Pa. 97; Kline v. Jacobs, 68 Pa. 57; Norris v. Gould, 15 W. N. C. 187. This just share or proportion has been held to refer to rents or profits received by a cotenant, and not to personal use or enjoyment of joint property. It was never held…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kile v. GiebnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Kline v. Jacobs & WifeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Enterprise Oil v. National Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Titusville Novelty Iron Works' AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Dalzell v. LynchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lipschutz v. LipschutzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936