TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Garvey v. Thompson

Garvey v. Thompson, 112 A. 82 (Pa. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 31, 1920
Docket
Nos. , No. 91
Judges
Brown, Erazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Simpson, Stewart, Walling
Citations
112 A. 82268 Pa. 3531920 Pa. LEXIS 691
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Ejectment — Record title — Uncontroverted facts — Case for court. 1. In an ejectment, where both parties claim a good record title, and such title involves no controverted facts, the question of the record title is for the court. Ejectment — Adverse possession — Case for jury. 2. In an ejectment where defendant sets up title by adverse possession, and this is controverted by plaintiff, the case is for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will not be reversed on appeal, where there is no reversible error in the manner in which the case was laid before the jury. Appeals — Statement of questions involved — Assignments of error. 3. Questions raised by assignments of error will not be considered where they are neither expressly covered nor suggested in the statement of questions involved.
Summary
Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Westmoreland Co., May T., 1918, No. 292, on verdict for defendant, in case of I. V. Garvey v. Elizabeth Thompson. Ejectment for land in Burrell Township. Before Copeland, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Errors assigned were various ridings and instructions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Moschzisker

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by Mr. Justice Moschzisker,

This is an action of ejectment in which judgment was entered on a verdict for defendant; plaintiff has appealed.

Both parties claim a good record title, and defendant also alleges title by adverse possession.

*355 The record title, which involved no controverted questions of fact, was for the court, and the trial judge instructed thereon in favor of defendant; but, at the same time, he submitted the case to the jury for a special verdict on the issue of adverse possession, set up by defendant and denied by plaintiff.

The jury found against plaintiff generally, and, specially, “that defendant had adverse possession for 21 years”; in view of this latter finding it is not necessary to discuss or determine the many interesting points dealt with by counsel, as to the correctness of the view of the learned court below on the question of the record title.

Neither the points for charge, nor the exceptions to the instructions of the trial judge, nor other entries on the record, suggest that, at trial, plaintiff stood on the ground, now so seriously taken, that he never left the tract in controversy, but merely moved to another part thereof, where he remained during all of defendant’s alleged possession; however that may be, all issues raised, as to defendants alleged adverse possession, were for the jury on the evidence, and none of appellant’s assignments suggests otherwise, nor do we find any which shows reversible error in the manner in which the case was laid before the jury.

Plaintiff, under some of his assignments of error, contends that certain records offered by him, and refused by the trial judge, should have been admitted; but this point need not be considered, for it is neither expressly covered nor suggested by the statement of questions involved. We will say, however, that we are not impressed by any of these complaints.

All assignments comprehended by the statement of questions involved, which go to what we have ruled to be the controlling branch of this case, are overruled; the others are dismissed.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1922: 21923: 51924: 21926: 119222026peak 1923 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Keck v. Pittsburgh, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Railway Co.115 A. 824 (Pa. 1922)
  2. Etnier v. Pascoe119 A. 406 (Pa. 1923)
  3. Hanlon v. Davis119 A. 822 (Pa. 1923)
  4. McKinley v. Wainstein81 Pa. Super. 596 (1923)
  5. Clapp v. Hunt119 A. 818 (Pa. 1923)
  6. Kasson v. Rocky Glen Water Co.81 Pa. Super. 11 (1923)

Most recent

  1. Commonwealth v. J. G. Brill Co.134 A. 441 (Pa. 1926)
  2. Texter v. Wachs83 Pa. Super. 343 (1924)
  3. Dunn v. City of Scranton83 Pa. Super. 330 (1924)
  4. McKinley v. Wainstein81 Pa. Super. 596 (1923)
  5. Kasson v. Rocky Glen Water Co.81 Pa. Super. 11 (1923)
  6. Etnier v. Pascoe119 A. 406 (Pa. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list