Lee v. Newland
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 181, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Forest Co., May T., 1893, No. 26, for defendants, non obstante veredicto. Ejectment. Before Noyes, P. J. The court charged as follows: “ The plaintiffs in this case claim to recover from the defendants a piece of land containing 50 acres more or less, being subdivision No. 43 of original warrant No. 2995, situated in Howe, township, formerly a part of Tionesta township, in this county.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 181, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Forest Co., May T., 1893, No. 26, for defendants, non obstante veredicto. Ejectment. Before Noyes, P. J. The court charged as follows: “ The plaintiffs in this case claim to recover from the defendants a piece of land containing 50 acres more or less, being subdivision No. 43 of original warrant No. 2995, situated in Howe, township, formerly a part of Tionesta township, in this county. As the basis of their claim they give in evidence assessments of this land as unseated with taxes for the years 1856 and 1857, and a…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We find no error in this record that would justify a reversal of the judgment. All the questions properly presented by the specifications of error were rightly decided by the learned president of the court below. It is unnecessary to add anything to what is so well said in his opinion; and on that the judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Scranton v. O'Malley Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Grakelow v. NashSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Pittsburgh PetitionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Osmer v. SheasleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Proctor v. Sagamore Big Game ClubDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.