TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lessee of Crunkelton v. Evert

Lessee of John Crunkelton, Joseph Crunkelton and Mary Brotherton against William Evert and James Wishart

Lessee of Crunkelton v. Evert, 3 Yeates 570 (1803)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1803
Judges
Coram, Smith, Yeates
Citations
3 Yeates 570
Headnotes
Ejectment may be maintained by the heirs of surviving trustee, not adverse to the interest of the cestui que trust. Every presumption is in favour of an ancient possession. Cited in 1 W. & S. 56 to show that it is only where it is proper that a trustee should have the possession of the trust property for the purpose of enabling him to execute the trust, in the manner prescribed by the deed declaring it, that he can resist the claim of the cestui que trttst.
Summary
Ejectment for 250 acres of land in Antrim township.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

It appeared in evidence that Joseph Crunkelton and James Thompson obtained letters of administration on 3d May 1749, on the estate of William Brown, and on the 10th October 1750, paid 7I. xos. into the receiver general’s office, for 150 acres of land in Antrim township, (held by the said Brown in his life time by improvement,) to be surveyed for the children of the said Brown, and on the same day took out a warrant for the same lands, as administrators of Brown.

A survey of 250 acres and 68 perches and allowance was made hereon by John Armstrong, D. S. on 2d January 1769. Thompson died and Crunkelton survived him, who afterwards died, leaving the lessors of the plaintiff his children.

A question being made, whether the heirs at law of the surviving trustee could maintain this ejectment, the court were clearly of opinion that they might, they having the legal title in them, and the suit not being adverse to the interests of the cestui que trust. It is in fact so determined in Kennedy v. Fury, 1 Dall. 72 .

But the defendants producing a bond from Crunkelton and Thompson to Bartholomew and Thomas Grogan, dated 21st July 1750, reciting that they had sold these lands to the obligees for 104l., and that they had received 15l. in hand and bonds for the residue. The court said, that every legal presumption was against the plaintiff, after so great a lapse of time, even if he could produce the bonds uncancelled.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

How later courts describe this case

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

1841–1842: 11933–1934: 118412026peak 1841 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Presbyterian Congregation v. Johnston1 Watts & Serg. 9 (1841) · Dissent
  2. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co. v. Jones170 A. 713 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co. v. Jones170 A. 713 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
  2. Presbyterian Congregation v. Johnston1 Watts & Serg. 9 (1841) · Dissent

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Kennedy v. Fury, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 72 (1783) 6

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