Bates v. M'Crory
3 Yeates 192
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bates v. M'Crory, 3 Yeates 192 (Pa. 1801).
3 Yeates 192 (Bates v. M'Crory) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bethel v. Lloyd
1 U.S. 2 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1759)