Rail Road Co. v. Bucher

7 Watts 33
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1838·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This proceeding could be regularly instituted but in the names, not only of the tenants, but also of their wives who are tenants in common; and it would certainly be safest to state the nature of the title. The authority given by the absent tenant extended only to the use of his name'and that of his wife; certainly not to a recovery in the name of the one for the use of both. Nothing but a conveyance to the co-tenant could authorise that. Neither could an irregularity which was fatal at first be cured by an act of subsequent confirmation; for to allow the complainants to affirm or reverse as the event should be favourable or otherwise, would give them an unreasonable advantage over the respondent in point of reciprocity. The proceedings were therefore properly quashed in the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Rail Road Co. v. Bucher, 7 Watts 33 (Pa. 1838).

7 Watts 33 (Rail Road Co. v. Bucher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Uhlendorf v. Kaufman
41 Ill. App. 373 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1891)
Tide Water Canal Co. v. Archer
9 G. & J. 479 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1839)