Marshal v. Sprott

Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas

Marshal v. Sprott

1 Add. 360

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County

DecidedDecember 15, 1798

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Add. 360 (Marshal v. Sprott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marshal v. Sprott, 1 Add. 360 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1798).

Pincite

Opinion

President.

If an action be brought on the covenant, Sprott can recover damages for any default of Marshal. Marshal, having no knowledge of any adverse possession, went to make a settlement according to his article. He found another in possession, and could not proceed to make his settlement, without taking possession by force, (which would have been an offence) or prosecuting an ejectment. He was not obliged to do this ; but, in such a case, had a right to say, that the bargain, from this material defect, an adverse possession, became void, and he had a right to demand back his money. The defendant seems to have been conscious of this, and proposed to do precisely the same thing. I can see no use in the evidence offered. But, if the defendant’s counsel think otherwise, we will reserve the point.

There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

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

President.

If an action be brought on the covenant, Sprott can recover damages for any default of Marshal. Marshal, having no knowledge of any adverse possession, went to make a settlement according to his article. He found another in possession, and could not proceed to make his settlement, without taking possession by force, (which would have been an offence) or prosecuting an ejectment. He was not obliged to do this ; but, in such a case, had a right to say, that the bargain, from this material defect, an adverse possession, became void, and he had a right to demand back his money. The defendant seems to have been conscious of this, and proposed to do precisely the same thing. I can see no use in the evidence offered. But, if the defendant’s counsel think otherwise, we will reserve the point.

There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Add. 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshal-v-sprott-pactcomplallegh-1798.