Heath v. Biddle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Jefferson. The plaintiff in this case had' the legal title. The ancestor of defendants (minor children) had previously entered and made a legal settlement, according to the verdict. The only question was, whether there had been an abandonment. The defendant having commenced his improvement, married, and lived on an adjoining tract.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Jefferson. The plaintiff in this case had' the legal title. The ancestor of defendants (minor children) had previously entered and made a legal settlement, according to the verdict. The only question was, whether there had been an abandonment. The defendant having commenced his improvement, married, and lived on an adjoining tract. Pie then moved to land owned by his father-in-law; and having met with misfortunes, was obliged to seek for employment. But it was proved he always intended to return, and continued to improve the land every year until his death.…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
The court below answers the first three points of the plaintiff in error in the affirmative, and refer the fourth to the jury, as presenting a mixed question of law and fact. We cannot say that the evidence of abandonment was so flagrant as to justify the court in pronouncing- it such. In all cases when the circumstances leave room for doubt, the jury is the proper tribunal to decide: Forster v. McDivit, 5 W. & S. 359; and in Wilson v. Watterson, 4 Barr, 219, it is observed, by the judge who delivered the opinion of the court, “ Some cases may be so strongly and indelibly marked, either by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Forster v. M'DivitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
3Cited by3 opinions
- Anderson v. BrinserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Brinser v. AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Emery v. RegesterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901