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.
Securities
Wells et al., appellants, v. Fox
1 U.S. 3081 Dall. 308·Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas·1788·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
Wells et al., appellants, v. Fox.
Party-walls. — Pjeotment.
Ejectment is the proper mode of determining a title, on an appeal from regulators of party-walls under the act of 1782.
This was an appeal from the determination of the regulators of party-walls, &c. Sowell moved that a venire should issue, agreeable to the third section of the act passed the 15th of April 1782 (2 Sm. Laws, 48), allowing the appeal to the next court of common pleas, and enacting, that thereupon “ the said court (upon security being entered, &c.), shall direct a venire to the sheriff, &c.”
Sergeant
thought that the question ought to be tried upon a feigned issue, or under an ejectment; to either of which he would agree. But by—
[MAJORITY — Shippen, President.]
Shippen, President.
A feigned issue can only determine, whether the regulators have done right or not; it cannot determine the title, and finally settle the matter. For this reason, we think it proper to try the question by ejectment.
Lewis and Wileochs said, the practice in the supreme court had been conformable to the opinion of the President here.