Hunt v. Crawford

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hunt v. Crawford

3 Pen. & W. 426

DecidedJune 15, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pen. & W. 426 (Hunt v. Crawford) 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

Hunt v. Crawford, 3 Pen. & W. 426 (Pa. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

Pjer Curiam.

The legal title was in Jesse Hunt, and whether he held it beneficially or in trust, is a matter which can be stirred but by one claiming to be a cestuy que trust. In Pennsylvania the owner of the equitable title, may undoubtedly maintain ejectment in his own name; but it certainly has not come to be the law, that a recovery cannot be had on the legal title against a third person. In the country from which we derive our laws, a recovery can be had on no other; and it would be strange, even here, if the title of the cestuy que trust, might be set up by a wrong doer, to defeat a recovery, by his trustee. The estate of Jesse Hunt, then,having passed to the plaintiffs by the will,by words of a devise, as clear as any found in the law, it follows, that the reasons for a new trial are without the show o.f a foundation in law or reason.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pjer Curiam.

The legal title was in Jesse Hunt, and whether he held it beneficially or in trust, is a matter which can be stirred but by one claiming to be a cestuy que trust. In Pennsylvania the owner of the equitable title, may undoubtedly maintain ejectment in his own name; but it certainly has not come to be the law, that a recovery cannot be had on the legal title against a third person. In the country from which we derive our laws, a recovery can be had on no other; and it would be strange, even here, if the title of the cestuy que trust, might be set up by a wrong doer, to defeat a recovery, by his trustee. The estate of Jesse Hunt, then,having passed to the plaintiffs by the will,by words of a devise, as clear as any found in the law, it follows, that the reasons for a new trial are without the show o.f a foundation in law or reason.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pen. & W. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-crawford-pa-1832.