Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The Lessee of Richardson v. Campbell, 1764 — 1 U.S. 10 · caselaw · US
IP
The Lessee of Richardson v. Campbell
1 U.S. 101 Dall. 10·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1764·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The Lessee of Richardson v. Campbell.
Evidence.
Evidence of parol declarations of one of the Proprietaries, respecting a sale of land, rejected.
Plaintief supported his title by a patent dated in 1762. The defendan produced receipts from the Proprietary’s officers, with a warrant from Mr Peters, secretary of the land-office, several years prior to plaintiff’s patent, and proved upwards of twenty years’ possession; hut the plaintiff contending, that the receipts were only for money paid on account of an adjacent tract and that there was some imposition on the land-officer when the warrant wat granted, the defendant produced a witness to prove a parol declaration of Mr. Thomas Penn (when he was in the country), that the land in dispute was sold to defendant. This piece of evidence was opposed by the plaintiff, and refused by the Court.
[MAJORITY — N. B.]
N. B.
The plaintiff could prove no imposition on the officer, and the court gave a charge in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff would not take the verdict, hut became nonsuit,
See Strickler v. Todd, 10 S. & R. 63; Patton v. Goldsborough, 9 Id. 47; McWilliams v. Martin, 12 Id. 69.