Arnold v. Stewart

163 A. 523, 309 Pa. 285, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 709
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 5, 1932
DocketAppeal, 117
StatusPublished

This text of 163 A. 523 (Arnold v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. Stewart, 163 A. 523, 309 Pa. 285, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 709 (Pa. 1932).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs, stockholders and directors of the First Pool Gas Coal Company, and the latter company as coplain-tiff, brought this bill in equity to recover title to coal lands, of which, they allege, they had been dispossessed by fraud. Defendants filed preliminary objections to the bill, averring that by reason of an action in ejectment previously brought by the First Pool Gas Coal Company against the Wheeler Run Coal Company and its terre-tenants, decided against plaintiff, the present proceeding was res judicata; that plaintiffs were precluded by limitation under the Act of April 22, 1856, P. L. 532; that they were guilty of laches; and that the individual plaintiffs named are not parties in interest. The court below entered judgment for defendant upon the pleadings ; the appeal before us is from this decree.

We will discuss only one of the questions raised. The ease arises from the same circumstances and is for the *287 same purpose as the action in First Pool Gas Coal Co. v. Wheeler Run Coal Co., 301 Pa. 485, plaintiffs, as the court below points out, seeking now to do by bill in equity what they failed to accomplish there by action of ejectment. The record before us, when compared with the proceeding and opinion in the ejectment suit, fails to present any facts or argument which would lead us to a different conclusion. The basic facts remain unchanged, and the law applied in the prior case rules here. Plaintiffs’ plea that they did not come into knowledge of the “full fraud” perpetrated upon them until two years before beginning this suit (endeavoring to take advantage of the proviso in section 6 of the Act of 1856) is a “quibble of terms......wholly unconvincing.” It follows that the action is barred by limitation under the Act of 1856.

The decree is affirmed; costs to be paid by plaintiffs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

First Pool Gas Coal Co. v. Wheeler Run Coal Co.
152 A. 685 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 A. 523, 309 Pa. 285, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-stewart-pa-1932.