Black v. Black
| Decision Date | 01 May 1896 |
| Docket Number | 36. |
| Citation | 74 F. 978 |
| Parties | BLACK v. BLACK et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
The plaintiff after putting in the record of the mortgage to her of Edgar N. Black, and of the sci. fa. proceedings thereon including the judgment in her favor, followed it with the marshal's deed to her, a certified copy of the will of Edgar's father in his favor, and of certain conveyances to him by deed; and then called witnesses who testified to Edgar's occupancy of the land and exercise of ownership over it for many years. With this the plaintiff rested. The defendants offered no testimony, but presented several points, in each of which the court was requested to direct a verdict in their favor. The points were reserved and filed and the jury was instructed that to entitle the plaintiff to recover against the defendants (who were not defendants in the execution under which the plaintiff purchased) she must show title in Edgar N. Black at the date of the mortgage; and called attention to the fact that to show such title she had produced the certified copy of the will before them, and of the several deeds in Edgar's favor, and had called the witnesses whom they had heard, to show Edgar's occupancy of and exercise of ownership over, the land; and instructed them that this was sufficient evidence of title in Edgar, at least as against the defendants, who had shown no right in themselves, and who might therefore be regarded as trespassers, provided the conveyances, including the will purported to transfer the land in question to him; that while the defendants could hold the possession until title in the plaintiff through Edgar was proved, as before indicated, such proof would justify and require a verdict against them; that the only question therefore, for the jury was, had the plaintiff shown such title, and that this question was to be determined from the evidence referred to, including that regarding Edgar's occupancy and acts of ownership. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff whereupon the defendants entered a rule for new trial, and assigned as reasons therefor the court's failure to affirm their points and also a rule for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict on the reserved points. On the hearing of these rules Circuit Court Judge Acheson sat with the trial judge, and concurs in the conclusions about to be stated. In support of the rules the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Andriano
...is not sufficiently definite, the jury should definitely describe the land found for plaintiff. Hunt v. McFarland, 38 Pa. St. 69; Black v. Black, 74 F. 978. (f) Error affecting the substantial rights of the parties should be ignored. Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 550; Nolan v. Railroad, 250 Mo.......
- La Page v. Day