M'Clowry v. Croghan's Administrator

31 Pa. 22
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 1, 1854·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The District Court entered judgment for the smaller amount named in the verdict, because, among other reasons, the plaintiff could not have recovered more if the lease contracted for had actually been executed, and the lessee had after- . wards been evicted by the remainder-man after the death of the tenant for life. The argument of the learned judge is so entirely satisfactory on this point, that we have no occasion to add anything to it; and as it is conclusive of the cause, we do not need to view it in any other aspect.

Judgment affirmed.

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

M'Clowry v. Croghan's Administrator, 31 Pa. 22 (Pa. 1854).

31 Pa. 22 (M'Clowry v. Croghan's Administrator) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frey v. Nakles
112 A.2d 329 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1955)
Holland Furnace Co. v. Keystone Dehydrating Co.
30 A.2d 872 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Seidlek v. Bradley
142 A. 914 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Panagos v. Plack
121 A. 306 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Cornelius v. Lytle
52 Pa. Super. 394 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)
American Ice Co. v. Pocono Spring Water Ice Co.
183 F. 193 (Third Circuit, 1910)
Bartram v. Hering
18 Pa. Super. 395 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
Walter v. Transue
17 Pa. Super. 94 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)