Thompson v. Kaufman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 2, Oct. T., 1898, by Ellen Herb, landlord, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Jan. T., 1896, No. 71, on verdict for plaintiff. Ejectment. Before Endlich, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. Yerdict for plaintiff for the premises described in the writ. Ellen Herb, landlord, defendant, appealed. Error assigned among others was giving binding instructions for plaintiff for the premises described in the writ.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
At least that part of the declaration containing a description of the property for which this ejectment was brought, together with the disclaimer if one were filed, should have been printed in the appellant’s paper-book. The rules of this court, touching the manner in which paper-books should be made up, are designed to insure the presentation of a statement of the essentials of each case upon which we may rely with confidence. In the present case the point in dispute can be understood only by a precise and accurate description of the boundaries of the land. The correct…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Best v. HammondSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
3Cited by7 opinions
- Miller's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Myers v. MyersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Keiser v. Reading Suburban Real Estate Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Light v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Smith v. MetzgerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.