Hamilton v. Seitz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was- an action of ejectment by Sarah Hamilton against Leonard Seitz and others, to recover lot No. 4, in a plan of lots laid out by A. H. McClelland, in the 8th Ward, in the city of Pittsburgh. The title was in S. & J. Hamilton, against whom a judgment was recovered, and fi. fa.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was- an action of ejectment by Sarah Hamilton against Leonard Seitz and others, to recover lot No. 4, in a plan of lots laid out by A. H. McClelland, in the 8th Ward, in the city of Pittsburgh. The title was in S. & J. Hamilton, against whom a judgment was recovered, and fi. fa. No. 308, of April Term, 1852,-was issued, and a levy made on lots Nos. 2 and 3; and, on the 22d April, 1852, extended at the yearly rental of $140. Notices served on defendant, and they not retaining it at the yearly rental, a venditioni exponas was issued to No.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Knox, J.
We are fully satisfied with the reasons given by the learned judge of the District Court, in support of the judgment for the defendants, non obstante veredicto. We are bound to presume that the amendment permitted in the numbers of the lots sold was founded upon satisfactory evidence that a mistake was made in that part of the description of the levy, and that the true numbers of the lots, really levied upon and sold, were 3 and 4 instead of 2 and 3. Besides which, the objection to the amendment is neither made by the proper person nor in the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Brush v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- Todhunter v. De GraffSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
- Tourison's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Estate of McClainSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897