Hylton v. Brown

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Hylton v. Brown

12 F. Cas. 1122, 1 Wash. C. C. 204

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 15, 1804

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Cas. 1122 (Hylton v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hylton v. Brown, 12 F. Cas. 1122, 1 Wash. C. C. 204 (circtdpa 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

During the vacation, I have considered this question; and I am now satisfied, that the court was wrong, in ordering the nonsuit. I permitted my judgment to be influenced, more than it ought to have been, by the nisi prius opinion of the chief justice of this state, as reported by Mr. Dallas. I think, that in an ejectment, the plaintiff must show, and it is enough for bis purpose, if he does show a right of entry; or, in other words, a right of possession. If he prove twenty years’ possession, or the seisin of his ancestor, and a descent east, it is in general sufficient, prima facie, unless the defendant show a better right. But, the defendant may succeed, by showing a better right in himself; or,- by showing it out of the plaintiff. But, is it sufficient for the defendant to show an original title in the proprietary? If the plaintiff show a right of possession in himself; this, I think, is certainly sufficient against every person, but the proprietary. If the defendant rely upon the original title of the proprietary, he must show it to be a subsisting title, either in the proprietary, or-in some one claiming regularly under him. I admit the rule, as laid down in the case cited, to be correct, if the suit be against the proprietary’, or one claiming under him; but not otherwise. Nonsuit set aside.

[See Cases Nos. 6,981 and 6,982.]

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

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

During the vacation, I have considered this question; and I am now satisfied, that the court was wrong, in ordering the nonsuit. I permitted my judgment to be influenced, more than it ought to have been, by the nisi prius opinion of the chief justice of this state, as reported by Mr. Dallas. I think, that in an ejectment, the plaintiff must show, and it is enough for bis purpose, if he does show a right of entry; or, in other words, a right of possession. If he prove twenty years’ possession, or the seisin of his ancestor, and a descent east, it is in general sufficient, prima facie, unless the defendant show a better right. But, the defendant may succeed, by showing a better right in himself; or,- by showing it out of the plaintiff. But, is it sufficient for the defendant to show an original title in the proprietary? If the plaintiff show a right of possession in himself; this, I think, is certainly sufficient against every person, but the proprietary. If the defendant rely upon the original title of the proprietary, he must show it to be a subsisting title, either in the proprietary, or-in some one claiming regularly under him. I admit the rule, as laid down in the case cited, to be correct, if the suit be against the proprietary’, or one claiming under him; but not otherwise. Nonsuit set aside.

[See Cases Nos. 6,981 and 6,982.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. Cas. 1122, 1 Wash. C. C. 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hylton-v-brown-circtdpa-1804.