Haslet v. Haslet

6 Watts 464
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 15, 1837
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 6 Watts 464 (Haslet v. Haslet) 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
Haslet v. Haslet, 6 Watts 464 (Pa. 1837).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The direction given, was an accurate exposition of the law throughout; and as to the allegation of .withdrawal of the cause from the jury, it is sufficient to say, there was not a scintilla of proof, that exclusive possession had been given or taken under the contract, even if there was one, insomuch that the plaintiff in error has been hopelessly driven to argue, that such possession is not an indispensable ingredient in a case for specific performance. In this state of the proofs, it was the duty- of the judge explicitly to direct that the jury were boimd by their oaths to find a verdict for the plaintiff

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Baranyai v. Csihas
55 Pa. D. & C.2d 447 (Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 1971)
Overbrook Farms Club v. MacCoy
32 Pa. D. & C.2d 603 (Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 1963)
Bratsch v. McCarthy
15 A.2d 404 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Vittor Et Ux. v. Szymanski
184 A. 27 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Tetlow's Estate
184 A. 129 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Morrish v. Price Et Ux.
142 A. 137 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Tressler's Estate
66 Pa. Super. 547 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Baxter v. Doane
57 A. 1062 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Holt v. McWilliams
21 Pa. Super. 137 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Gallagher v. Gallagher
5 S.E. 297 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1888)
Ward v. Stuart
62 Tex. 333 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)
Bowers v. Bowers
95 Pa. 477 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)
Jamison v. Dimock
95 Pa. 52 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)
Kutz v. Hepler
3 Foster 44 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1875)
McCormick's Appeal
57 Pa. 54 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1868)
Hill v. Meyers
43 Pa. 170 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1862)
Greenlee v. Greenlee
22 Pa. 225 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1853)
Moore v. Small
19 Pa. 461 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1852)
Burns v. Sutherland
7 Pa. 103 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1847)
Frye v. Shepler
7 Pa. 91 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1847)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Watts 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haslet-v-haslet-pa-1837.