Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Yeates 103

Leach v. Armitage

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 15, 1792

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1792-01-15

On a motion for a new trial in this cause, the chief justice reported the evidence which was given at the trial, at the last assizes held for Montgomery county. The suit was an action of trespass, for breaking and entering the close of the plaintiff in Cheltenham township, containing fifteen acres. The defendant pleaded liberum tenementum, and the parties were at issue.

Decided 1792-01-15

*Per curiam.

¶1Upon the trial of the cause, it was submitted to the jury upon the great variety of evideuce r*ino *- which was given to them on both sides, whether the actual survey made for Benjamin Whitehead included the lands in question. It was fairly left to them on this simple fact, which must necessarily influence their verdict. They must naturally be supposed to be more competent to the decision of such a question, having had the benefit of a view, than any other persons without that species of information. It is laid down in the books, that where there has been a view, the court will not grant a new trial, without strong and special circumstances. (5 Bac. Abr. 240. 11 Mod. 1.)

¶2The present verdict is not conclusive to the right, nor effects any change of the possession. If it he thought proper, the point of title may be tried again in a new action of trespass or ejectment. The damages found are small; and if the defendant was to obtain a new trial, it could only be effected on payment of costs. The courts’ setting aside the present verdict, would be throwing an unreasonable slur on the plaintiff’s title, which if it should come before the court again for discussion, ought to be tried 011 the fairest grounds.

¶3We are therefore unanimously of opinion, that the rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted, be discharged, and that judgment be entered for the plaintiff.

/1/yeates/103 · .json · Public domain