Bates v. M'Crory
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Partition. Plea non tenant insimul. The plaintiff claimed under an application and survey, in the name of John Allet, who conveyed to Daniel Jones. On the 20th May 1785, Jones conveyed to the plaintiff Bates, and Jacob Kestler as joint-tenants, in consideration of 80I. On the 23d March 1790, Kestler conveyed his undivided moiety to William Early, who afterwards on the 1st April 1794, conveyed his moiety to the defendant, M'Crory.
Read the full summary
Partition. Plea non tenant insimul. The plaintiff claimed under an application and survey, in the name of John Allet, who conveyed to Daniel Jones. On the 20th May 1785, Jones conveyed to the plaintiff Bates, and Jacob Kestler as joint-tenants, in consideration of 80I. On the 23d March 1790, Kestler conveyed his undivided moiety to William Early, who afterwards on the 1st April 1794, conveyed his moiety to the defendant, M'Crory. On the 27th January 1795, a patent issued to Bates and M'Crory, as tenants in common. The defendant’s counsel offered to shew, that Bates and Kest-ler had amicably…
1Opinion of the Court
The court said, it was competent to the defendant on the present issue, to go into the evidence offered. Whether they hold together and undivided, was the very issue the jury were sworn to try. They cannot now hold together, if they have agreed to a former division in pais, and actually executed the same.
The evidence was received, but was fully counterproved by the plaintiff. The line was fixed on for mere temporary purposes, and not intended to be peremptory; and this was shewn to be the express agreement of the parties.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bethel v. LloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1759