Densmore v. Haggerty

59 Pa. 189, 1868 Pa. LEXIS 243
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 21, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 59 Pa. 189 (Densmore v. Haggerty) 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
Densmore v. Haggerty, 59 Pa. 189, 1868 Pa. LEXIS 243 (Pa. 1868).

Opinion

[190]*190The opinion of the court was delivered, October 26th 1868, by

Read, J.

On the 14th July 1864 plaintiff below sold all his real estate in Washington township, Erie county, upon the following terms: — To give defendant possession on the last day of March next. To give a good and sufficient title unencumbered— and defendant, in consideration of the above agreement, agreed to pay to plaintiff $10,000, in manner following: $50 at the signing of the agreement, $1000 on the 1st day of October next, and the balance on the last day of March next.

On the 14th November 1864 there was levied a township'bounty tax upon the said real estate in the name of the plaintiff, amounting to $179.40.

On the 9th January 1865 there was levied upon said real estate in the name of the plaintiff, a county and a county bounty tax of $90.15, and a township tax of $10, all of which the plaintiff paid December 4th 1865, and now seeks to recover the same from the defendant.

The plaintiff was liable for the taxes, and they could have been recovered from him by due course • of law. He was the legal owner of the estate when they were levied, and he was the equitable or real owner during the same period, receiving the rents and profits up to the last day of March 1865, when he was to give a good and sufficient title and deliver possession. The title was to be unencumbered, and this could only be done by his paying these liens, which he finally did. He has therefore no claim, either legal, equitable or moral, upon this defendant for the liens so paid by him.

The court below were therefore in error, and the judgment must be reversed and judgment entered in favor of the defendant on the case stated.

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

Related

Consolidated Real Estate Co. v. Northumberland County
68 Pa. D. & C. 451 (Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1949)
White v. First Nat. Bank of Emporium
24 F. Supp. 290 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1938)
Sloan v. Hirsch
30 Pa. D. & C. 163 (Washington County Court of Common Pleas, 1937)
Pennsylvania Co. v. Bergson
159 A. 32 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Schermer v. Wilmart
127 A. 315 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Nixon v. Marr
190 F. 913 (Eighth Circuit, 1911)
Theobald v. Sylvester
27 Pa. Super. 362 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Republic Building & Loan Ass'n v. Webb
12 Pa. Super. 545 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)
Commonwealth ex rel. Burgess & Town Council v. Mahon
12 Pa. Super. 616 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 Pa. 189, 1868 Pa. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/densmore-v-haggerty-pa-1868.