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 September 1766, 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 September 1766
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Citation
- 1 U.S. 14
- Judges
- Present, William Allen, Chief Justice, William Coleman and Alexander Stedman, Justices.
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
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Decided
- 1766-09-01
Headnote
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1766. Present, William Allen, Chief Justice, William Coleman and Alexander Stedman, Justices. The Lessee of Thomas v. Horlocker. Ancient deeds.
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.437 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]
¶ 2Plaintiff produced a deed, bearing date sixty-three years ago, appearing on inspection to he ancient; one of the witnesses proved to he dead, the other not known. Possession had not attended the deed, and no oth r account was given of it, or the witnesses, than by the evidence of a person who swore he had well known one of the witnesses, and had seen many deeds and papers signed by him, and from thence believed his name to this deed, to be of his handwriting, but had never seen him write. The Court, on debate, thought this a sufficient proof of the deed, considering its antiquity, and it was read in evidence.
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 Thomas v. Horlocker” in the last three months, from GDELT.