« ZurückWeiter »
TABLE OF THE CASES.
Commonwealth v. Johnson 195
v. Kite 399 Alexander v. Ramsey 338 Andrews v. Andrews
v. Kosloff 545 374
Jacobs v. 315 в
Rogers v. 463 Bank of Washington, Smith
Withers v. 59 v.
. - 318 Conrad v. Keyser - 370 Barr, Davis v. - 516 Cook v. Irvine . . 492 Barton, Seely v. - - 390 Cozens v. Stevenson - 421 Beaumont, Ely v.
124 Craig, Prior v.
· 78 Curcier v. The Philadelphia
[ Ꭰ .
- - 516 Boyce v. Wilkins - 329 Deacon, Wright v. - 62 Boyd, Shaw o. - - 309 Decamp v. Feay . Brotherton ü. Haslet - 334 Delaware Insurance ComBrown, Juniata Bank v. 226 pany, Peters u. .. 473 Browne 0. Weir . 401 Dickenson College, TrusBucks county, directors of tees of, M.Coy v.
254 the Poor v. Guardians of Dietrick v. Dietrick 207 the Poor of Philadelphia 417 Dillman v. Schultz
Dillo, M.Comb v.
Duffield, Swift v. - 38
E llow on Carpenter v. Groff
162 Easton v. Worthington 130 beste Church, Wills v.
- 190 Elder, Wallace v. - - 143 Colley v. Latimer ' 211 Ely v. Beaumont . 124 Collins, Reed v. - - 351 Elliott, Hamilton v. - 375 Commissioners of South
Knorr v. - 49 wark, Mifflin v. - 69 Ely, Hill v. . . . 363 Commonwealth v. Bussier 451
v. Cain 510
Faustenauer, Fahnestock v. 174 Jones v. Maffet
• 523 Feay, Decamp v. - 323 Irvine, Cook v.
492 Ferris, Kennedy v. - 394 Juniata Bank v. Brown Franklin, Kean v. - 147 Fraley v. Nelson - - 234
к Fries v. Watson - 220 Kean v. Franklin - - 147 G
Keller v. Nutz. - 246
Kennedy v. Ferris - 394 Gaw, Pringle v. - - 536 Keyser, Conrad v. Gilday v. Watson - 267 Kimmel v. Kimmel - 294 Gilkeson, Nash v. - 352 King, Rose v.
- 241 Girard v. Taggart - 19. 539 Kite, Commonwealth v. 399 v. M Dermot - 128 Knorr v. Eliiott
- 49 Gogel v. Jacoby - . 117 Kosloff, Commonwealth v. 545 Jacoby v. - - 450 Kucher, Hart v.
Kucher, Hart v. .. 1 Greason, Commonwealth v. 333 Groff, Carpenter v. - 162
. LE Guardians of the Poor v. Lake v. Shaw - - 517
Roberts . . - 112 Large v. Passmore. 51 Guardians of the Poor of Latimer v. Hodgdon - 514 Philadelphia v. The Di
Colley v. 211 rectors of the Poor of Lecky o. M.Dermot - 331 Bucks county - •
Lee v. Wilcocks
Lloyd, Mooney v. - - 41% " Η Logan v. Watt
212 Hamilton v. Elliott - 375 Ludwig, Wood v. .. 446 Harp, Stehley v. - - 544 Hart v. Kucher
M v. Porter's Executors 201 Maffet, Jones v. - - 523 Haslett, Brotherton v. 334 M.Chesney, Oldden v. 71 Hassinger v. Solms - 4 MComb v. Dillo - - 304 Hawk v. Stouch - 157 M.Coy v. Trustees of DickHays, Bellas o. - - 427 enson College - - 254 Healy v. Moul - 181 M“Cready, Thomas v. 387 Hewes, Waln v. - - 468 M•Dermot, Lecky v. - 331 Hill v. Miller - - 355
Girard v. 128 0. Ely - - - 363 M·Dowell v. Ingersoll 101 Hodgdon, Latimer v. 514 M.Ewen, Moore v. - 373 Holmes, M«Farland v. 50 M-Farland v. Holmes - 50 Humes, Cardesa v. - 65 M'Grady v. M.Mahan Hutchinson, M Peake v. 295
295 M.Mahan, M.Grady o. 314
M.Peake v. Hutchinson
Mifflin v. Commissioners Jacobs v. Commonwealth 315 of Southwark - : 69 Jacoby, Gogel v. - 117 Miley, Wilhelm v. - 137
• - 450 Miller, Hill v... - 355 Ingersoll, M.Dowell v. 101 Mooney v. Lloyd - 412 Johnes v. Potter - - 519 Moore v. The Philadelphia Jones v. Hughes - 299 Bank ."
Moore v. M•Euen . 373
Swartz v. - 257 Searle, Pederick v. - 236
Shaw v. Boyd - -
Lake v. - - - 517 Nash v. Gilkeson - 352 Smith v. Bank of WashingNelson, Fraley v. - - 234 ton . - - 318 Newman, Bellv.
78 Smith v. Painter - - 223 Nicholas v. Wolfersberger 167 Stapler. Pickering v. . 107 Nutz, Keller v. - - 246 Stehlev v. Harp - - 544 O
Stevenson, Cozens v. - 421 Old, Rogers v. - - 404
Stouch, Hawk v. - - 157
Swartz v. Moore - 257 Oldden v. M.Chesney 71
- Oliver, Phillips v.
Swift v. Duffield
Taggart, Girard v. 19. 539
Thomas v. Ml•Cready - 387
United States Insurance
pany, Curcier v. - 113 Waln v. Hewes . . 468 Philadelphia Bank, Moored. 41 Watson, Fries v.
220 Phillips v. Shaeffer - 215
v. Gilday - : - 267 Oliver v. - - 419 Watt, Logan v. - 212 Pickering v. Stapler ..' 107 Weir, Browne v. - - 401 Porter's Executors, Hart v. 201 Weyand v. Tipton
Wilkins, Boyce v. - 329
Wills v. Church - - 190
Insurance Company 501 Wood o. Ludwig - - 446) Capito? Roberts, Guardians of the Worthington, Easton v. 130 27su
Poor v. - - - 112 Wright v. Deacon - - 62
Two cases decided at Pittsburg, September, 1819, will be found in the 4th Volume of these Reports, p. 417-420. They were inserted there to fill a yacancy occasioned by the printing of a case which was introduced by mistake.
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of The right in
the first buildPhiladelphia.
er to reimbursement, for
the expense of Case stated in the nature of a special verdict, on which the a party-wall,
is a personal Court below gave judgment for the defendant.
right against the second
builder, and The question to be decided in this case, depended on the on payment.
thereof by the construction of the act for regulating party-walls, &c., in the owner of the
becne adjoining lot city of Philadelphia, passed 24th February, 1721. The state 80 of the case was this. William Garrigues, under whom the builder, the
claim of the plaintiffs claimed, was the owner of a house and lot in this latter is at an city; the party-wall of which extended over the line of the end, and a
purchaser adjoining lot, owned by Hugh Roberts. On the 29th No- from him can.
í not afterwards vember, 1789, Roberts paid Garrigues a sum of money, which recover it was received in full satisfaction for Roberts's moiety of the Will
building is party-wall. Garrigues gave Roberts, a receipt in writing, erected, al
though there but neither the receipt, nor any other writing respecting the is no instruparty-wall, were put on record. In the year 1815, the defendent on reant Mrs. Kucher, being seised in fee, by virtue of sundry mesne tice of such Vol. V.-A