Rosenburger v. Schull
This text of 7 Watts 390 (Rosenburger v. Schull) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 Watts 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenburger-v-schull-pa-1838.