TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fish v. Brown

Fish against Brown

Fish v. Brown, 5 Watts 441 (1836)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1836
Judges
Sergeant
Citations
5 Watts 441
Headnotes
' Although clearing a few feet or yards by an adjoining owner, would not take from a tract of land the character of unseated, and render it not liable to assessment and sale for taxes; yet the cultivation of several acres fixes the denomination of the whole tract, and charges the person of the cultivator, so that the tract cannot be sold for taxes. When the defence is matter of fact, about which evidence has been given, it is error to instruct the jury, that “the defence set up fails, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover.”
Summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Jlrmsttong county. This was an action of ejectment for a tract of land, by Joseph Brown against James Fish, the facts of which are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sergeant

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Sergeant, J.

~In Shaeffer v. M’Cabe, 2 Watts 421 , it was held that a clearing over of a few feet or yards on another tract, by an adjoining owner, would not talse from such tract the character of unseated, and prevent it from being liable to assessment and sale for taxes; but that the cultivation of several acres fixes the denomination of the whole tract," and charges the person of the cultivator with the *442 payment of the taxes, so that a sale of the traet for the taxes is, in the latter case, unauthorised. The plaintiff, in the present instance, claimed under a commissioner’s deed for land previously sold as unseated, and purchased in by the commissioners ; and the question was, whether the land was to be deemed unseated or not at the time of the assessment and sale. Contradictory evidence was given on the subject. But some of the witnesses for the defendant (Campbell and Barnett) swore to a clearing and cultivation of a five acre field by Campbell, comprising the field in which the defendant lived at the time of the trial. Another witness (Barr) testified that he knew the line between the claims of Brown and Campbell; that it ran through the five acre field, splitting it .nearly in the middle. If these witnesses are believed, at least one half of the field was cultivated by Campbell, which is sufficient to bring the case within the rule. Whether these witnesses were to be believed was a question of fact for the jury. Yet the court charged “ that some of the witnesses, have testified to the clearing of some land; but, although a part of this may be within the lines, how much is altogether uncertain; none of them know the lines except by hearsay. Thus you have no testimony as to the extent of the land cleared within the line where the land was 'cleared. For this reason the defence set up fails, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover.” In this, we think, the court went too far, and took from the jury what was matter of fact within their province to decide.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1840–1841: 11850–1851: 11856–1857: 11878–1879: 11942–1943: 118402026peak 1840 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Foster v. M'Divit9 Watts 341 (1840)
  2. Northumberland County v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.131 F.2d 562 (3d Cir. 1942)
  3. Hughs v. Pickering14 Pa. 297 (1850)
  4. Jackson v. Sassaman29 Pa. 106 (1857)
  5. Hamaker v. Whitecar1 Walk. 120 (1879)

Most recent

  1. Northumberland County v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.131 F.2d 562 (3d Cir. 1942)
  2. Hamaker v. Whitecar1 Walk. 120 (1879)
  3. Jackson v. Sassaman29 Pa. 106 (1857)
  4. Hughs v. Pickering14 Pa. 297 (1850)
  5. Foster v. M'Divit9 Watts 341 (1840)

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
Sheaffer v. M'Kabe, 2 Watts 421 (1834) 11

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