Phila. & Erie Land Co. v. Earl

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Phila. & Erie Land Co. v. Earl

3 Walker 350

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 15, 1883

DocketNo. 149

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Walker 350 (Phila. & Erie Land Co. v. Earl) 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

Phila. & Erie Land Co. v. Earl, 3 Walker 350 (Pa. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas on May 26th, 1884, in the following opinion,

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff seeks to repudiate a parol exchange of lands made twenty years ago. Possession was taken in pursuance of this exchange thereafter, and has been continuously maintained. The land then taken by the plaintiff was dedicated' to public use as streets or public highways. It was accepted'' as such and ever since has been so used. The plaintiff cannot now restore the land thus dedicate]. It is therefore in no condition to rescind the contract. To take from the defendants the lands which they acquired without any return of those which they yielded up would work a gross fraud upon them. . The evidence of authority to make the exchange was sufficient to go to the jury, and it was properly submitted. There is no error in the rulings relating to the admission and ¡ rejection of evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas on May 26th, 1884, in the following opinion,

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff seeks to repudiate a parol exchange of lands made twenty years ago. Possession was taken in pursuance of this exchange thereafter, and has been continuously maintained. The land then taken by the plaintiff was dedicated' to public use as streets or public highways. It was accepted'' as such and ever since has been so used. The plaintiff cannot now restore the land thus dedicate]. It is therefore in no condition to rescind the contract. To take from the defendants the lands which they acquired without any return of those which they yielded up would work a gross fraud upon them. . The evidence of authority to make the exchange was sufficient to go to the jury, and it was properly submitted. There is no error in the rulings relating to the admission and ¡ rejection of evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Walker 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phila-erie-land-co-v-earl-pa-1883.