Heartzog v. Borgel
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 57, March T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. York Co., April T., 1896, on verdict for plaintiff. Ejectment. Before Bittenger, P. J. It appears from the evidence that this was an action of ejectment to recover possession of a certain house and lot of ground described in the plaintiff’s writ.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 57, March T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. York Co., April T., 1896, on verdict for plaintiff. Ejectment. Before Bittenger, P. J. It appears from the evidence that this was an action of ejectment to recover possession of a certain house and lot of ground described in the plaintiff’s writ. Both the parties claimed title through Henry Heartzog, the plaintiff by will and the defendant under an alleged parol contract, the tenor of which being an alleged agreement by Henry Heartzog in his lifetime that Louisa Borgel should have the property for life. Offers were made to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
Both of the parties to this ejectment claim a life estate in the property through Henry Heartzog, deceased, — the plaintiff under the latter’s will and the defendant under an alleged parol contract. The learned court below excluded several offers of proof submitted on behalf of the defendant, and finally directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant has not been injured by the rejection of the offers of proof, for had the testimony been admitted, it would not in our opinion have sustained a *259verdict for the defendant. We need therefore not pass upon its competency.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dumn v. RothermelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Smith v. TuitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Whiting & Co. v. Pittsburgh Opera House Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
- Tuit v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Holland Furnace Co. v. Keystone Dehydrating Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942