Bell v. Lessee of Wetherill
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR .to tjie .Common-Pleas of Dauphin,cqunty, .in ejectment. . : The plaintiff claimed, under- a .warrant to George Bartramf dated Marsh 15th, 17.74, and - survey thereon, April 20th, 1774. The title .of. George Bartram was regularly deduced to the plaintiff, except that certain deeds from George Bar-tram to Alexander Bartram,-and- from-Alexander Bartram, to William Hiorn were not produced.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR .to tjie .Common-Pleas of Dauphin,cqunty, .in ejectment. . : The plaintiff claimed, under- a .warrant to George Bartramf dated Marsh 15th, 17.74, and - survey thereon, April 20th, 1774. The title .of. George Bartram was regularly deduced to the plaintiff, except that certain deeds from George Bar-tram to Alexander Bartram,-and- from-Alexander Bartram, to William Hiorn were not produced. They were, however, recited in the patent from the Commonwealth, subsequently granted to William Hiorn* -which was given in evidence on the trial. Possession had not accompanied the patent, but…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case the Court of. Common Pleas left it to the jury to presume a deed, of the existence of which there Was no other evidence than a recital in the patent to William Hiorn, under Whom the plaintiff claims: and the presumption was set up against the defendant, who derived title from the Commonwealth,/jrior to the date of the patent. That such recital alone was not. sufficient evidence, was decided by this Court, in the case of Penrose v. Griffith, and the principle has been recognised in other, cases. I should be glad to lay hold of an^…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hay v. KramerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841