Carothers v. Lessee of Dunning
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Cumberland county, in an ejectment brought by the lessee of Robert, William, Ezekiel, and Mark Dunning, against Elizabeth and James Carothers, in which a bill of exceptions was returned to the charge of the Court.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Cumberland county, in an ejectment brought by the lessee of Robert, William, Ezekiel, and Mark Dunning, against Elizabeth and James Carothers, in which a bill of exceptions was returned to the charge of the Court. The material facts of the case were as follows: The plaintiffs below, the Dunnings, claimed as co-heirs under a warrant to Robert Dunning, deceased, dated the 19th November, 1743, and a warrant to William Armstrong, dated April, 1743, which was purchased by Robert Dunning, The defendants derived title under what is known by the name of a…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The errors assigned in this case, are exceptions to the charge of the Court, before whom the cause was tried. In the charge the evidence is so fully stated, that it is unnecessary for me to go into a detail. I shall, therefore, mention but a few of the most material facts, referring to the charge for the rest. [His honour here recapitulated the facts of the case.]
1. The first exception to the charge is, that the Court left it to the jury to decide, whether the improvement made by John Calhoun, was or was not, on the land of Robert Dunning. (Whereas, if the improvement was made…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Alternas v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Gregg v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Graffius v. TottenhamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Rose v. KlingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844