Horton v. Davidson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Horton v. Davidson

19 A. 934, 135 Pa. 186, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1168

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 19, 1890

DocketNo. 90

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A. 934 (Horton v. Davidson) 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

Horton v. Davidson, 19 A. 934, 135 Pa. 186, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1168 (Pa. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam:

This was an action of ejectment in the court below. The defendant did not show any paper title, nor did he even allege that he had one. He defended upon the ground of adverse possession for twenty-one years. The learned judge below was of opinion that the evidence on the part of the defendant was not sufficient to sustain his claim, and so instructed the jury.. As this ruling, if correct, was decisive of the case, the learned judge declined all of the defendant’s points. In this we see no error. The evidence of adverse possession was clearly insufficient. Aside from this, there was a distinct recognition of plaintiffs’ title by defendant in his letter to the attorney for the Bingham trustees. With the failure of this defence his points were of no importance.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam:

This was an action of ejectment in the court below. The defendant did not show any paper title, nor did he even allege that he had one. He defended upon the ground of adverse possession for twenty-one years. The learned judge below was of opinion that the evidence on the part of the defendant was not sufficient to sustain his claim, and so instructed the jury.. As this ruling, if correct, was decisive of the case, the learned judge declined all of the defendant’s points. In this we see no error. The evidence of adverse possession was clearly insufficient. Aside from this, there was a distinct recognition of plaintiffs’ title by defendant in his letter to the attorney for the Bingham trustees. With the failure of this defence his points were of no importance.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A. 934, 135 Pa. 186, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-davidson-pa-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack