Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

TABLE OF THE CASES.

[ocr errors]

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.
Bell v. Newman

· 78 Curcier v. The Philadelphia
Bellas o. Hays - 427 Insurance Company 113
Berentz v. Bishop - - 179
Bishop, Berentz v. - 179

[ Ꭰ .
Bloom v. Bloom - · 391 Davis v. Barr .

v. Darr

- - 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.

304

Duffield, Swift v. - 38
Cain, Commonwealth - 510
Cardesa v. Humes

- 65

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
v. Greason 333 Fahnestock v. Faustenauer 174

[ocr errors]

с

226

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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

- 48

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
I

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 ."

allan

314

295

[ocr errors]

Moore v. M•Euen . 373

Swartz v. - 257 Searle, Pederick v. - 236
Morrow, Thompson v. 289 Seely v. Barton - - 390
Morse, Whitall v. - 358 Schultz, Dillman v. - 35
Moul, Healy o. - - 181 Shaeffer, Phillips v. - 215

Shaw v. Boyd - -
N

309

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

38
: - 419

Τ
P

Taggart, Girard v. 19. 539
Painter, Smith v. . 223

Thomas v. Ml•Cready - 387
Passmore, Large u. - 51 Thompson v. Morrow 289
Pederick v. Searle - 236 Tipton, Weyand v. - - 332
Peters v. l'he Delaware In-
surance Company - - 473

U :
Philadelphia, Guardians of

United States Insurance
the Poor of, Directors of Company, Ritchie o. 501
the Poor of Bucks coun-
ty v.

W
- - - 417
PhiladelphiaInsurance Com Wallace v. Elder - 143

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

332
Potter, Jones v. - 519 Whitall v. Morse - - 358
Pringle v. Gaw - - 536 Wilcocks, Lee v. - 48
Prior o. Craig - - 44 Wilhelm v. Miley - - 137

Wilkins, Boyce v. - 329
R

Wills v. Church - - 190
Ramsey v. Alexander - 338 Withers 0. The Common-
Reed v. Collins - - 351 wealth - - - 59
Ritchie v. United States Wolfersberger, Nicholas v. 167 lutgers,

Insurance Company 501 Wood o. Ludwig - - 446) Capito? Roberts, Guardians of the Worthington, Easton v. 130 27su

Poor v. - - - 112 Wright v. Deacon - - 62
Roberts, Yundt o. - 139
Rogers v. Old - - 404

Y
Rose v. King -
241 Yundt v. Roberts

- 139

[merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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.

[blocks in formation]

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

payment.

a second

« ZurückWeiter »