Pott v. Lesher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
'The plaintiff declared on two counts. 1st, Indebitatus as~ stimpsit for 500I. for the use and occupation of one furnace, &c. in East District township. 2d, on a qiiantum valebant.
Read the full summary
'The plaintiff declared on two counts. 1st, Indebitatus as~ stimpsit for 500I. for the use and occupation of one furnace, &c. in East District township. 2d, on a qiiantum valebant. The facts which appeared in evidence, were as follows: John Eesher being seized of the premises, and a judgment to a considerable amount being recovered against him, on the 10th June 1784, entered into articles of agreement with the plaintiff and Jacob Morgan, junr. his sons in law and the defendant his son, whereby the said John Eesher sold, granted and conveyed to the said John Pott, Jacob Morgan and Jacob…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
We feel no inclination to turn the plaintiff round to another suit, if justice could be administered in the present action, agreeably to the established rules of law; we however feel ourselves bound to adhere to the settled boundaries of actions. We should in an action for use and occupation, under the evidence adduced, try an ejectment, the defendant holding adverse to the plaintiff’s title, and not under his licence. The suit is brought for use and occupation under the defendant’s permission; and the allegata andprobata must agree. Independent of the authorities cited, why…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bain v. LyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Miller v. HenlanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dudding v. HillIllinois Supreme Court · 1853
- Kline v. Jacobs & WifeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- McCloskey v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Hayden v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- City of Wilkes-Barre v. ChaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.