New Ingestion is live for the UK, the EU, US federal law and ~7M US decisions. Search the corpus ›

Andrew's Lessee v. Fleming

2 U.S. 93

How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.

This is a decision of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, given 1 May 1786, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.

No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.

Source

Published by
Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
Source
Caselaw Access Project
Licence
Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
Held here since
26 September 2026

Version

Decided
1 May 1786
Later treatment
Not cited by any later authority here
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania

Authority

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Citation
2 U.S. 93
Unknown treatment 0 citing authorities

No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.

The decision

Read aloud by your browser
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided
1786-05-01

Headnote

May Sessions, 1786. Andrew’s Lessee, versus Fleming. EJECTMENT. In the course of the trial of this cause, the following points were ruled. 1. The plaintiff offered to give evidence of a conversation between Thomas Fleming, the husband of the defendant, under whom the held possession, and Callander, under whom the plaintiff claimed; in which Fleming, declared, "that he had title to the land in question, taken in execution as his, by the sheriff; and prayed Callander to permit him to continue sometime longer in possession.” It was objected, that the admission of the evidence would be setting up a person’s own declarations, to give him a title to the Sand. But, by the Court Ejectments are possessory action; and in England it is necessary to shew a possession within, twenty years. The plaintiff may, therefore, shew the possession of Mr. Callander, or of any other person under whom he Claimswithin that term; and in order to do so, he certainly is at lierty to give, proof, that the person, under whom the defendanclaims, was, in fact, nothing more than Mr. Callander's Tenant on sufferance. Let the evidence be admitted. 2. It was objected, on the part of the defendant, that the Fi. Fa. by virtue of which the lands in question had been sold, only directed the sheriff to levy of the goods and chattels, &c.— which is not an authority to take the lands in execution. Wilson, for the Plaintiff. Yeates and Smith, for the Defendant. Ruled at Lancaster Nisi Prius.

Judgment

Read from a scan

OCR confidence 0.619 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.

¶ 1[majority — By the Court:]

¶ 2By the Court: — Lands are to be considered as chattels in Pennsylvania, for the payment of debts. In some counties of this State, and throughout the State of Delaware, the writs of Fi. Fa. always issue in that form. It is said, that the precedents mention “Lands and Tenements”; but this has not been proved, as it ought to be, by producing in Court such precedents before, at the time, and subsequent, to the issuing of the Writ. At most, however, it is but an omission, in point of form; which is too slender a foundation for oversetting a sheriff's sale of lands.

AI summary

Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.

Ask LawTAG

Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.

What it relied on

No outbound citations have been extracted for this decision.

In the news

News coverage of “Andrew's Lessee v. Fleming” in the last three months, from GDELT.