Heffelfinger v. Shutz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Writ of error to the District Court of Dauphin county. This case, so far as it could he understood from the record, was an ejectment brought in the court below, by George, Elizabeth, and Peter Shutz against Peter Heffelfmger, to recover three acres of land in Hanover township which the plaintiffs claimed uiider a warrant for one hundred acres in favour of George Shutz, dated the 2d of March 1752, and a survey thereon dated the 12th of April, 1775, of one hundred…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Writ of error to the District Court of Dauphin county. This case, so far as it could he understood from the record, was an ejectment brought in the court below, by George, Elizabeth, and Peter Shutz against Peter Heffelfmger, to recover three acres of land in Hanover township which the plaintiffs claimed uiider a warrant for one hundred acres in favour of George Shutz, dated the 2d of March 1752, and a survey thereon dated the 12th of April, 1775, of one hundred and ninety-four acres for Leonard Shutz in right of the said George Shutz. The question on the trial turned principally on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
If the deed from John Shellenberger to George File, of the 7th of March, 1775, for the lands surveyed on George Shutz’s warrant on the 2d of March, 1752, accompanied with evidence of possession of the general tract, had been received as evidence of title it would have been proper testimony; but as the question, so far as the record show's us, was one of actual possession of the small piece of land, for which the ejectment was brought, and was received as evidence of occupation of the locus in quo, I am of opinion, that for that purpose it was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Anderson v. KeimSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Warring v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1829