Dull v. Heath
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common. Pleas of Elk. Oct. 22. Heath brought ejectment, and the evidence of his title was similar to that stated in Heath v. Knapp, 4 Barr, 228. The defendants relied on the fact, that no patent having issued, there was not such a legal title as would pass under the conveyance by Mrs. Morris and her husband; the land having been devised to her separate use without the intervention of a trustee. The defendants were strangers to the trust.
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
The bills of exception to evidence have scarce the pretence of an argument to sustain them; and the other. points were settled when the cause was here before. Yet at the end of one short year we are called upon, with a confidence which nothing but the well-earned reputation of the counsel can excuse, to reverse our judgment, on the ground that a warrant and survey do not, with us, confer a legal title, notwithstanding a multitudinous train of authorities to the contrary! And for this unexpected attempt, *86we are referred, in the first place, to a dictum of Chief Justice Ellsworth, who, if not a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lessee of Burkart v. BucherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
- Duer v. BoydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814
- Caines v. Lessee of GrantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- Gonzalus v. HooverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1820