Shaffer v. Eichert

1. Where an ejectment was brought by a plaintiff, in right of his wife, and on trial verdict and judgment were had for the plaintiff, an amendment adding the name of the wife as a necessary co-plaintiff, doing no injury to the defendant, may be made on the argument in the Supreme Court. 2. A case, which comes by appeal and certiorari into the Supreme Court, without an exception taken in the court below to the order or ruling which is specified for error, has nothing upon the record for the Supreme Court to decide, and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

APPEAL BY DEFENDANT FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 169 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 779 December Term 1886, C. P. No. 1. On January 26, 1887, “Jacob Shaffer, who intermarried with Maria, late Maria Eiehert, in the right of said Maria; Charles E. Schroeder, who intermarried with Elizabeth, late Elizabeth Eiehert, in right of said Elizabeth; Richard H. Grayson, who intermarried with Mary A., late Mary A. Eiehert, in the right of the said Mary A.; George Engwiller, who intermarried with Catharine, late Catharine Eiehert, in the right of the said Catharine; William Glading who intermarried with Louisa, late Louisa Eiehert, in the right of the said Louisa, and Adam Eiehert, brought ejectment against David R. Eiehert, Philip Lantz, and Willaminah Millhouse.” On February 26, 1887, the record was, amended by striking out, “ who intermarried with Maria, late Maria Eichert, in right of said Maria.” Issue. At the trial on April 15,1889, before Biddle, J., the plaintiffs claimed the property in dispute in'right of their wives as heirs-at-law of Catharine Eichert, deceased. David R. Eichert claimed under a deed executed by Ins mother, Catharine Eichert, to himself; the other defendants held under him. The plaintiffs introduced evidence which tended to show that Catharine Eichert, at the time the deed to the defendant was executed, was an imbecile and incapable of managing her own affairs. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. No exceptions were taken either to the rulings or the charge of the court. A rule for a new trial was subsequently discharged, and on June 17, 1889, judgment was entered upon the verdict. On the same day,.the defendant entered a rule on the plaintiffs to commence their second action of ejectment within six months. This rule was discharged on June 22, 1889, and on the same day the plaintiffs filed a disclaimer to all right, title and interest in the undivided one seventh of the premises in dispute, and on the same day a writ of habere facias possessionem was issued,, on the praecipe of the plaintiffs, for six undivided sevenths of the property. The defendant then entered a rule upon the plaintiffs to set aside the writ, which rule the court subsequently discharged. Thereupon the defendant took this appeal, specifying that the court erred: 1. In discharging the motion made by the defendant for a new trial. 2. In entering judgment upon the verdict for the plaintiffs. 3. In discharging the rule upon the plaintiffs to commence their second action of ejectment within six months, or show cause why the same cannot be brought. 4. In discharging the rule to set aside the writs of habere facias possessionem and fieri facias for costs.