McKibbin v. Charlton

14 Pa. 128
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 15, 1850
StatusPublished

This text of 14 Pa. 128 (McKibbin v. Charlton) 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
McKibbin v. Charlton, 14 Pa. 128 (Pa. 1850).

Opinion

Per curiam.

— This case is distinctly within the principle of Harbison v. Jack, 2 Watts 124, in which it was held that an accidental or temporary suspension of the actual occupancy of land does not make it unseated, and that where profits have been drawn from it, the owner can return it to the unproductive class only by abandonment, entire, unlimited, and intentional. This lot was in cultivation the year before the assessment and the year after it, the interruption having been occasioned by a sale of it for a building lot to one who was not prepared to make instant use of it. In the mean time it was not thrown out as a common, but suffered to remain enclosed, along with the vendor’s unsold lots, by a common fence. He, or his vendee, was personally liable for the tax, and it could not be charged on the ground.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Harbeson v. Jack
2 Watts 124 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1833)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Pa. 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckibbin-v-charlton-pa-1850.