Leitch v. Little

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Leitch v. Little

14 Pa. 250

DecidedSeptember 15, 1850

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Pa. 250 (Leitch v. Little) 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

Leitch v. Little, 14 Pa. 250 (Pa. 1850).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Gibson, C. J.

— The plaintiffs below brought their ejectment on an equitable title, derived from an agreement of purchase by the father of the parties on both sides. The father had died; his children had agreed to let their mother have the estate during her life; and she had agreed to pay the debts out of the personalty. She had consumed it, and died, leaving them unpaid. The defendants had gone into possession, under a lease from her; paid the residue of the purchase money, under the pressure of an ejectment, and received a legal conveyance from the vendor, whose place they were thus compelled to take. Would a chancellor compel them to convey to the other children, before they had been reimbursed their advances ? A simple statement of the case shows he would not. The legal title would, however, be a security for no more than the purchase money with interest, and the costs of the former ejectment.

Judgment reversed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Gibson, C. J.

— The plaintiffs below brought their ejectment on an equitable title, derived from an agreement of purchase by the father of the parties on both sides. The father had died; his children had agreed to let their mother have the estate during her life; and she had agreed to pay the debts out of the personalty. She had consumed it, and died, leaving them unpaid. The defendants had gone into possession, under a lease from her; paid the residue of the purchase money, under the pressure of an ejectment, and received a legal conveyance from the vendor, whose place they were thus compelled to take. Would a chancellor compel them to convey to the other children, before they had been reimbursed their advances ? A simple statement of the case shows he would not. The legal title would, however, be a security for no more than the purchase money with interest, and the costs of the former ejectment.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Pa. 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leitch-v-little-pa-1850.