Durkin v. Lamond

Citations

• 57 Pa. Super. 27
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment — Damages—Adverse possession — Evidence.</p> <p>1. In an action of ejectment for a strip of land two feet in width it appeared that in 1907, an old fence between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s lot was taken down and a new fence built. The plaintiff claimed that the new fence had been moved back on to her ground about two feet, and that she had been in exclusive and adverse possession of the strip for over thirty years. The defendant claimed the strip as within the line of his deed, and also alleged that the new fence was on the line of the old fence. In 1905, a stone wall was erected along the front of defendant’s premises. The defendant offered in evidence a receipt of the builder of the stone wall built in 1905, and the receipt of a lumber company for the material for the fence built in 1907. She also offered in evidence tax receipts for tax paid on her house and lot from 1905 to 1908. Held, that the admission of all such evidence was erroneous, and that it was also error for the court to charge that the jury might consider as pertinent the existence of the stone wall at the front of the lot, the proximity of the old fence to the house, and the dimensions of defendant’s lot according to her deed.</p> <p>2. In such a case the only matter for the jury was to ascertain the fact of the plaintiff’s occupancy of the strip, and the exclusive, continuous and hostile character of such occupancy for more than twenty-one years. The evidence admitted and referred to in the charge was not relevant to this question.</p>