Horton v. Davidson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Horton v. Davidson, 135 Pa. 186 (Pa. 1890)
19 A. 934; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1168
Clark, Cueiam, Green, McCollum, Paxson, Williams

Horton v. Davidson

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam:

This was an action of ejectment in the court below. The defendant did not show any paper title, nor did he even allege that he had one. He defended upon the ground of adverse possession for twenty-one years. The learned judge below was of opinion that the evidence on the part of the defendant was not sufficient to sustain his claim, and so instructed the jury.. As this ruling, if correct, was decisive of the case, the learned judge declined all of the defendant’s points. In this we see no error. The evidence of adverse possession was clearly insufficient. Aside from this, there was a distinct recognition of plaintiffs’ title by defendant in his letter to the attorney for the Bingham trustees. With the failure of this defence his points were of no importance.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
W. HORTON v. D. D. DAVIDSON
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
In ejectment, where, against a prima facie title in the plaintiff, the defendant relies entirely upon adverse possession, and his evidence is such as to show that his possession, though continuous for twenty-one years, was not adverse to the plaintiff’s title, hut in recognition of it, it is not error to instruct the jury to find for the plaintiff.