Thompson v. McFarland
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Mercer county. Oct. 4. The plaintiff in this ejectment claimed under a patent in 1834; the defendant under a patent in 1804 to Scott; and the question was, whether the land in dispute was covered by the Scott patent. It appeared that one Swearingen had made an unofficial survey, which the deputy surveyor was asked to adopt as the survey on the Scott warrant. This he declined doing without examination, but sent to have it examined.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Mercer county. Oct. 4. The plaintiff in this ejectment claimed under a patent in 1834; the defendant under a patent in 1804 to Scott; and the question was, whether the land in dispute was covered by the Scott patent. It appeared that one Swearingen had made an unofficial survey, which the deputy surveyor was asked to adopt as the survey on the Scott warrant. This he declined doing without examination, but sent to have it examined. On report made, he drafted a return on the Scott warrant, the lines of which excluded, on actual measurement, a small strip of the…
1Per curiam
As a plaintiff in ejectment recovers on the strength of his own title alone, it is immaterial whether the paper, which was the subject of exception, was received or not. It would probably have been a defective link in the chain between the defendant and the patentee, had the defendant been the demandant and attempting to recover the possession by the force of it; but it was as sufficient for the purpose of defence that the patent showed the title to be out of the plaintiff, as it would have been had the writing in question showed .it to be in the defendant. Its competency for that purpose…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Staub v. HamptonTennessee Supreme Court · 1906
- Ferguson v. Bloom, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County1891
- Culver v. HazlettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900