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

Lessee of Biddle v. Shippen

1 U.S. 19

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 April 1773, 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 April 1773
Later treatment
Not cited by any later authority here
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania

Authority

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Citation
1 U.S. 19
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
1773-04-01

Headnote

APRIL TERM, 1773. The Lessee of Biddle v. Shippen. Evidence. — Li/mitation. A map of the town, of Germantown, made about thirty years back, ruled not to be good evidence. The stat. 21 Jac. I., c. 16, ruled to extend to Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, among other evidence, offered a map, made by one Zimmerman, about thirty years ago. One John Knorr, Zimmerman’s nephew, proved that said map was the work of his uncle, at the request of the people of Germantown ; that his uncle dying, before he was paid for it, it remained in the family ; that it contains the lines of the Germantown lots, and the adjacent out-lands ; that, upon any difficulty, they apply to him, and this map generally determines any dispute they may have about their lines. Mr. Ghew opposed this map, at first, but afterwards agreed that the lands in controversy were as laid down in it, and admitted it with a salvo of its being no precedent. Upon the plaintiff’s offering it to the jury to take cut with them, Mr. Ghew opposed it, and some difference arising, Tins Court declared it was not proper evidence, that they should not have allowed its being offered to the jury, nor would they suffer them to take it out with them, See Griffith v. Tunckhouser, 1 Peters’ C. C. 418; Jones v. Bache, 3 W. C. C. 199.

Judgment

Read from a scan

OCR confidence 0.465 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]

¶ 2But the Court also declared, that the statute of 21 Jac. I., c. 16, of twenty years’ possession, extended here; and that it had never been doubted, In Morris v. Vanderen, post, p. 67, C. J. McKean said, that the statute 21 Jac. I., c. 16, was not in force in Pennsylvania. Its principal provisions are contained in the act of 27th March 1713. 1 Sm. Laws 76.

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 “Lessee of Biddle v. Shippen” in the last three months, from GDELT.