Rosenburger v. Schull

7 Watts 390
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1838·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The law of the case seems to have been already settled. Was there a substantial occupancy which might have presented itself to the eye of the assessor, is a question that was sufficiently raised and fairly put to the jury. The assessor had nothing to do with the misapprehension or mistakes of the occupant; it was [394]*394sufficient that there was a personal responsibility for the taxes in order to make it his duty to assess the land as seated. There was in fact an acre and a half in actual tillage, a nucleus sufficient, when accompanied by residence or vacant land, to constitute a title by improvement; and it was entirely sufficient to give a particular denomination for purposes of assessment. The cause was therefore left to the jury on its true principles.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Rosenburger v. Schull, 7 Watts 390 (Pa. 1838).

7 Watts 390 (Rosenburger v. Schull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. Bell
25 A.2d 308 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Patten v. Warner
11 App. D.C. 149 (D.C. Circuit, 1897)
Stoetzel v. Jackson
105 Pa. 562 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1884)
Jackson v. Sassaman
29 Pa. 106 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1857)
In re Brown's Estate
2 Pa. 463 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1846)
Fisk v. Sarber
6 Watts & Serg. 18 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1843)
Foster v. M'Divit
9 Watts 341 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1840)