Brandmeier v. Pond Creek Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 90, Jan. T., 1910, ■by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., June T., 1904, No. 127, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Frederick Brandmeier and Mary Mills v. Pond Creek Coal Company. . Assumpsit for use and occupation of coal land.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 90, Jan. T., 1910, ■by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., June T., 1904, No. 127, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Frederick Brandmeier and Mary Mills v. Pond Creek Coal Company. . Assumpsit for use and occupation of coal land. Before Fuller, J. At the trial plaintiffs offered in evidence the record of the ejectment suit of the plaintiffs against the defendant, with the verdict and judgment thereon, followed by the habere facias for the possession of the land for the use and occupancy of which and the use thereof, suit in this case is now pending, for the purpose…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
These appellees recovered a judgment against the appellant in an action of ejectment: Brandmeier v. Pond Creek Coal Co., 219 Pa. 19; and this action in assumpsit was instituted for the recovery of damages resulting from their ouster from the property. Their claim, as set forth in their statement, does not arise from any contract with the defendant, express or implied, but the learned trial judge, in his opinion directing judgment to be entered on the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, held that inasmuch as skill in pleadings “is a lost art,” and there had been a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reilly v. Crown Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Brandmeier v. Pond Creek Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives & Granting Annuities v. HarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Commonwealth v. GouldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Hartford v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912