Legal Opinion

Tatham v. Ramey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 29, 1876PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Blair county: Of May Term, 1876. No. 6. This action was begun as an action of dower at common law, by “Elizabeth Ramey, widow of Jacob Ramey, deceased, now intermarried with Joseph S. P. Harris,” against George M. Tatham; the narr. contained counts for dower in five messuages.

Read the full summary

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Blair county: Of May Term, 1876. No. 6. This action was begun as an action of dower at common law, by “Elizabeth Ramey, widow of Jacob Ramey, deceased, now intermarried with Joseph S. P. Harris,” against George M. Tatham; the narr. contained counts for dower in five messuages. The writ was served on the tenants of the defendant, who occupied a certain tract of land of which Jacob Ramey had died seised, of an undivided two-sevenths of which the defendant had become the owner after Ramey’s death. After an appearance was entered for the defendant, the…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sharswood

It certainly was not the meaning of the legislature, in passing the Act of May 10th 1871, Pamph. L. 265, permitting an amendment or change in the form of an action, to authorize an entirely new and different cause of action to be substituted. The words of the act, “ If the same shall be necessary for a proper decision of the cause upon its merits,” plainly evince this, and it is the principle which runs through all our acts for amendment and the decisions wMch have been had upon them. The courts have construed these acts with the greatest liberality, but never to the extent of allowing a…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Willing v. Provident Trust Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API