Mitchell v. Spaulding
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 41, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Feb. T., 1899, No. 177, non obstante veredicto in case of Charles W. Mitchell v. Allen A. Spaulding. Ejectment for land in Leroy township. Before Dunham, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict for plaintiff subject to questions of law reserved. The court entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
W. D. Pobteb, J.,
There was a verdict for the plaintiff, but the court entered judgment in favor of the defendant non obstante veredicto, upon a question of law reserved. The question reserved involved only the legal effect of the record of a proceeding in lunacy, a;nd a sale of the land in question under an order of the court of common pleas in that proceeding. The title of the defendant was dependent upon the validity of the sale in the lunacy proceeding. If the court of common pleas had jurisdiction to decree the sale, upon the face of the record as it then stood, the judgment of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Yaple v. TitusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Bennett v. Hayden, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County1892
- Shaffer v. ListSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Hambleton's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Imhoff v. Witmer's AdministratorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Brennan's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Foley v. SmaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Foley v. Smay, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County1942
- O'Connor's Estate, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1925