TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leineweaver v. Stoever

LEINEWEAVER against STOEVER

Leineweaver v. Stoever, 17 Serg. & Rawle 297 (1828)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1828
Judges
Huston
Citations
17 Serg. & Rawle 297
Headnotes
If a verdict in dower, where the husband did not die seised, finds, among other things, the value of the land, this wilL be considered as surplusage, and not vitiate the rest.
Summary
IN ERROR.

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

Opinion of the Court — Huston

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Huston, J.

This is a writ of error to Lebanon county. ■ The verdict is in these words: “ Jury found for the plaintiff, and that Tobias Stoever, the husband of the plaintiff, was seised in fee of the premises; that he aliened the same in fee simple, on the 1st of April, 1814, to P. Leineweaver, the defendant, who . has been in *298 possession of the same ever since; that the premises at the time of the said alienation, were of the value of five thousand and fifty pounds; that Tobias Stoever died in August, 1824, before the institution of this suit, and that the plaintiff was the lawful wife of the said To-bias, at the time of the alienation.”

On this, judgment was entered. To be sure, there was a mistake in finding the value of the fee simple, instead of the annual value; or,, rather as T. Stoever did not die seised, it was surplusage to find any thing about the value.

The jury have found all the material facts, and one totally immaterial; if the plaintiff should ever take a writ of inquiry for damages; or, mesne profits,-she may subject herself to a writ of error; but, if she only takes her writ of seisin, there will be no harm done,, even if this were more than surplusage and actual error, the Court in this action can affirm in part and reverse in part.

Judgment affirmed, considering this finding as to value in this case as mere surplusage.

How later courts describe this case

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

1832–1833: 11836–1837: 118322026peak 1832 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shirtz v. Shirtz5 Watts 255 (1836)
  2. Benner v. Evans3 Pen. & W. 454 (1832)

Most recent

  1. Shirtz v. Shirtz5 Watts 255 (1836)
  2. Benner v. Evans3 Pen. & W. 454 (1832)

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