34 Pa. 304 | Pa. | 1859
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The learned judge of the court below gave a full and lucid charge to the jury in this case, clearly defining the law governing it, and leaving all the facts to the jury, with proper instructions in regard to them. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the able counsel for the plaintiff in error has failed to convince us that this judgment should be reversed, on any of the grounds contended for by him.
The definition of what constitutes a title by adverse possession is so well settled and known, that we will not repeat it. Every
In De Haven v. Landell, 7 Casey 120, we said that “ a court should see that there is evidence to go to the jury, on all the points necessary to make title by the statute.” “That if .it be wanting as to any of them, an essential of title is wanting,” and it is then the duty of the judge to charge, that the party claiming by virtue of the statute has not title under it. It was, therefore, entirely proper, on part of the judge, to instruct the jury that an interruption in the possession, for a year, would be fatal to the plaintiffs’ claim under the statute. The fact of possession was for the jury; the kind and length of that possession, to be effectual, was a matter of law for the court.
To have answered either the 1st or 3d points of the plaintiff as requested would have been error. The assessment of taxes to the Grofts was not a substitute for a pretermitted occupancy, or a cure
We find no error in this record, and the judgment is affirmed.