Case ID: f-cas_12/html/0845-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 6,849.
    HUIDEKOPER v. BURRUS.
    [1 Wash. C. C. 257.] 
    
    Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
    April Term, 1805.
    Pleading — Motion in Akrest or Judgment — Formal Defects in Declaration.
    Motion for arrest of judgment; because, the ejectment against the casual ejector, was wrong entitled, and for other defendants. The declaration to which the real defendant had pleaded, was right. The motion was overruled.
    Mr. Ingersoll, for plaintiff,
    admitted; that, in the declaration against the casual ejector, there exists the mistake alleged; but, a new declaration was filed in the present circuit court, and properly entitled: to which declaration the defendant pleaded, that the land, in this declaration, is stated to lie in the district of Pennsylvania; which, after the repeal of the former circuit court law, was sufficient.
    Rule discharged.
    
      
       [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]
    
   This was a motion in arrest of judgment [in the- case of Huidekoper v. Burrus, Case No. 6,848], because the action is brought, as of April sessions, 1802, in the circuit court of the United States, in and for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania; whereas no such sessions was ever held or established by law. 2d. The land is not stated to be in the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, though the action is.brought in and for the Eastern district. 3d. No title in the plaintiff at the time of the entry and ouster, stated in the declaration.