Thompson v. Consolidation Coal Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Thompson v. Consolidation Coal Co.

166 A.2d 286, 194 Pa. Super. 178

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 14, 1960

DocketAppeal, No. 153

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 A.2d 286 (Thompson v. Consolidation Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Consolidation Coal Co., 166 A.2d 286, 194 Pa. Super. 178 (Pa. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Watkins, J.,

The decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County is affirmed on the able opinion of President Judge Hook for the court below, reported at 22 Pa. D. & C. 2d 525, wherein he followed the Pennsylvania doctrine that holds, “Where several persons have a joint or common interest in an estate, it is not to be tolerated that one shall purchase an encumbrance or an outstanding title, and set it up against the rest, for the purpose of depriving them of their interests.” Weaver v. Wible, 25 Pa. 270, 272 (1855).

This doctrine has been consistently followed in this Commonwealth and was strongly reiterated in Beers v. Pusey, 389 Pa. 117, 132 A. 2d 346 (1957), where the question was whether a wife of a tenant in common may buy property of the tenancy at a tax sale and obtain a good title against the other tenants? The Supreme Court held she could not and that law, equity, and fair dealing all dictate that she may not.

Decree affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Watkins, J.,

The decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County is affirmed on the able opinion of President Judge Hook for the court below, reported at 22 Pa. D. & C. 2d 525, wherein he followed the Pennsylvania doctrine that holds, “Where several persons have a joint or common interest in an estate, it is not to be tolerated that one shall purchase an encumbrance or an outstanding title, and set it up against the rest, for the purpose of depriving them of their interests.” Weaver v. Wible, 25 Pa. 270, 272 (1855).

This doctrine has been consistently followed in this Commonwealth and was strongly reiterated in Beers v. Pusey, 389 Pa. 117, 132 A. 2d 346 (1957), where the question was whether a wife of a tenant in common may buy property of the tenancy at a tax sale and obtain a good title against the other tenants? The Supreme Court held she could not and that law, equity, and fair dealing all dictate that she may not.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.2d 286, 194 Pa. Super. 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-consolidation-coal-co-pasuperct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack