Hall v. Tanner
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Oct. 20. The defendant in error brought ejectment for a lot numbered twenty, in the Warren Reserve. The only evidence on the paper-book was a copy, of the drafts, surveys of the plaintiff and defendants, and the patent of the latter.
Read the full summary
Oct. 20. The defendant in error brought ejectment for a lot numbered twenty, in the Warren Reserve. The only evidence on the paper-book was a copy, of the drafts, surveys of the plaintiff and defendants, and the patent of the latter. The survey of the plaintiff was made on the 28th September, 1799, in pursuance of the act of April 11, 1779, for selling certain reserved tracts, and of the order of the governor of May 14,1799, and that of the surveyor-general on the 18th of the same month. The draft, or plan, returned by the deputy surveyor is here given. The defendants’ survey was made on the…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
The court were right in -declaring that neither the town lots nor the reserved tract (which .were supposed to adjoin and- lie adjacent' -to the town lot's) were open to settlement. The town lots and the .-reserved tract, were appropriated to public use. ' •
The act-of the 3d April, 1792, (3 Smith’s Laws, 71,) offered for sale-and settlement all the vacant lands of.the Commonwealth, '« except those appropriated) and which hereafter shall be-appropriated, to .anypub-li’c and charitable use.”. See 3Smith’sLa.ws, sec.2, page 71. Tanner, the plaintiff, showed on this trial that he was the owner of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ferguson v. Bloom, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County1891
- Culver v. HazlettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900