Boar v. M'Cormick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. . THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Cumberland county. The defendants in error, who were plaintiffs below, brought an action of debt on two bonds given by Boar, the defendant below, being part of the consideration of a tract of land purchased by the said Boar, of the said Moore, It was given in evidence by the defendant, that the tract, which by the patent appeared to Contain 200 acres, turned out upon measurement to contain but 167 acres and 53…
Read the full summary
In Error. . THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Cumberland county. The defendants in error, who were plaintiffs below, brought an action of debt on two bonds given by Boar, the defendant below, being part of the consideration of a tract of land purchased by the said Boar, of the said Moore, It was given in evidence by the defendant, that the tract, which by the patent appeared to Contain 200 acres, turned out upon measurement to contain but 167 acres and 53 perches. There was no evidence of the agreement of the parties, except the deed of conveyance. This deed contained a recital…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
after stating the facts, delivered his opinion as follows: — This deed affords no ground for saying that the contract of the parties was to sell by the acre. The whole land was conveyed in consideration of an entire sum of 500/. Nor is there a single expression in the deed which looks like a covenant that the tract contained 200 acres, as the defendants’ counsel have contended. In most cases surveys contain more land than the estimated quantity. Yet when the whole tract is granted, the whole passes without regard to quantity. In the present instance, the description being by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Large v. PennSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821
- Ashcom v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830