Lessee of Meredith v. Macoss
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Ejectment for a Rouse and lot in the city of Philadelphia. It was admitted on both sides, that Mrs. Mary Masters was seized in fee of the premises in question. The lessor of the plaintifF claimed under a deed made to him by Anthony Butler, her attorney in fact.
Read the full summary
Ejectment for a Rouse and lot in the city of Philadelphia. It was admitted on both sides, that Mrs. Mary Masters was seized in fee of the premises in question. The lessor of the plaintifF claimed under a deed made to him by Anthony Butler, her attorney in fact. The defendant rested his defence under a prior written memorandum, signed by Mrs. Elizabeth Lawrence, the wife of John Lawrence, esq. who was brother of Mrs. Masters, engaging to rent the premises to him for seven years. He proposed to examine Mrs. Lawrence as a witness respecting her authority from Mrs. Masters, but the same was…
1Opinion of the Court
per Cur.
But This is a still stronger deviation from the rules of evidence than what was first attempted. To deduce an argument from a person’s usurpation of property, or their possessing themselves of lands, that they therein acted under the authority of the owner, is unfair reasoning, and might be advan*ced to sanctify any trespass whatever. Such r*noi testimony would be attended with dangerous conse- L quences, and prove highly injurious to society. We cannot possibly receive it.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Blood v. GoodrichNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Grayson v. BannonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Parrish v. Koons, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1844
- Cortes v. BillingsNew York Supreme Court · 1800