Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Yeates 300

Goodright v. Probst

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 15, 1793

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1793-05-15

Ejectment for 160 acres of laud in Huntingdon and Hempfield townships. The plaintiff made title to the lands, under two regular' patents, founded on warrants and surveys.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1853

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1793-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1It is indispensibly necessary for the defendant not only to shew the warrant from the lieutenant, or sub*301lieutenant to the constable to levy the fine, or account for the loss thereof; but also to shew the call of the militia by the president or vice-president in council; the notification of the classes to march by written notices to be left at their usual places of abode, specifying the time and place of rendezvous, and that the lieutenant or sub-lieutenant will hold an appeal at the time and place therein appointed, and all the other steps preliminary to the sale as required by law. Where a special authority is delegated by law, to particular persons, to take away a man’s property and estate against his will, there it must be strictly pursued, and must appear to have been so pursued. Cowp. 29. The same doctrine was laid down at Chester, October assizes last, in the case of Marshall’s lessee v. Ford, upon a sale by a sheriff in pursuance of a precept issued by the trustee of the loan office, to sell certain mortgaged premises. And it is obvious, that such summary proceedings as the present under a special authority, cannot be too minutely or closely investigated; because otherwise the landed property of every citizen of the state would be-held by a very precarious tenure.

Mr. Woods, pro quer. Mr. J. Ross, pro def.

¶2The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, without withdrawing from the bar.

/1/yeates/300 · .json · Public domain