Dunden v. Snodgrass

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Dunden v. Snodgrass

18 Pa. 151, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 247

DecidedOctober 24, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Pa. 151 (Dunden v. Snodgrass) 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

Dunden v. Snodgrass, 18 Pa. 151, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 247 (Pa. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We cannot distinguish this case from Strauch v. Shoemaker, 1 W. & Ser. 175, and Michew and McCoy, 7 [155]*155W. Ser. 390-1. The number of the tract was an artificial mark set on it for convenience of designation; but it might be designated by any other. The question was one of identity. As to notice, an owner who neglects to pay his taxes or call at the office to inquire, has no right to complain of want of precision. There was enough in this instance to lead him to the truth; and it is sufficient that the description did not positively mislead him.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We cannot distinguish this case from Strauch v. Shoemaker, 1 W. & Ser. 175, and Michew and McCoy, 7 [155]*155W. Ser. 390-1. The number of the tract was an artificial mark set on it for convenience of designation; but it might be designated by any other. The question was one of identity. As to notice, an owner who neglects to pay his taxes or call at the office to inquire, has no right to complain of want of precision. There was enough in this instance to lead him to the truth; and it is sufficient that the description did not positively mislead him.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Pa. 151, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunden-v-snodgrass-pa-1851.