Jacob Eisenhuth ^{1 2}

   FamilySearch ID: K8NN-QB6.

  Noted events in his life were:

1. Occupation: Timbering in Jan 1816 in New Berlin, Union, PA. By 1816, Bernard, his father-in law's family the Orwigs, and his eldest son George Eisenhuth pursued timbering in the wildness of Union and Centre counties. They succeeded in getting the Pennsylvania House and Senate to pass an act in 1868 signed by the Governor allowing them to build a mill race on Penn's Creek near New Berlin in Union County to transport logs down the creek to the Susquehanna River.

In the 1820 census in New Berlin, we find the households of George Eisenhuth, his half-brother Jacob Eisenhuth, and Jacob Orwig.

2. Census in 1820 in New Berlin, Union, PA. ⁴ Two Eisenhuth households are listed side-by-side on the 1820 Union County census...

The 1820 census recorded George Eisenhuth with this household:
Free White Persons - Males - Under 10 2 young sons
Free White Persons - Males - 16 thru 25 1 son
Free White Persons - Males - 26 thru 44 1 George (b. 1776-1794)
Free White Persons - Females - 10 thru 15 1 daughter
Free White Persons - Females - 26 thru 44 1 wife

The 1820 census recorded Jacob Eisenhuth with this family:
Free White Persons - Males - Under 10: 2 young sons
Free White Persons - Males - 26 thru 44: 1 Jacob (b. 1776-1794)
Free White Persons - Females - Under 10: 1 young daughter
Free White Persons - Females - 16 thru 25: 1 wife.

3. Census in 1850 in Rush Twp., Schuylkill, PA. ⁵ The 1850 census recorded Jacob Isenhuth, laborer, 58; Lydia, 56; Lydia, 20; Jacob, 18; Mary, 16; Benjamin 13; and Margaret, 10. Also in the home is Jacob's father Barnard Eisenhuth, 87; Thomas Heiser, teamster, 25; and Jacob's son, Barnard, laborer, 29; with his wife Catharine, 21; and their daughter Mary Alice, 2. Everyone was born in Pennsylvania.

4. Court: Jacob Eisenhuth and his brother-in-law Jacob Beacher were involved in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case over land purchased in Schuylkill County. In 1858 in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. ⁶ Error to the Common Pleas of Schuylkill county

This was an ejectment by Alexander F. Glass, Samuel Shober, Frederick Shober, William Roberts and James Cummings against John McBarron, Jacob Eisenhuth, James Taggart and Wayne Myers, for a tract of land in Rush township Schuylkill county containing 412 acres 91 perches.

The plaintiffs claimed title under a warrant to Joseph Hoy for 400 acres dated the 24th May 1815 a survey thereon on the 9th June following of 412 acres 91 perches accepted on the 30th of the same month and a patent to Joseph Hoy on the 8th July 1815.

On the 7th June 1842 Philip Hoy and wife and Joseph Hoy and wife conveyed to Jacob Beacher the tract patented to Joseph Hoy for $1600. And on the 4th April 1845 Jacob Beacher and wife conveyed an undivided half of the same tract to George Eisenhuth. The plaintiff deduced a clear legal title from Beacher and Eisenhuth.

The defendants claimed an undivided half of the land. They showed that six warrants each for 400 acres and dated the 24th May 1815 including the one under which the plaintiffs claimed title had been taken out in the names respectively of George Body, Philip Hoy, George Body Jr., Abraham Hoy, Henry Hoy and Joseph Hoy; that they were taken out and paid for by George Body, the father of George Body Jr., and by Philip Hoy, the father of Abraham, Henry and Joseph Hoy in partnership and for their joint use; that they had them surveyed on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of June 1815, and paid the office and patenting fees.

That George Body died in 1841 or 1842 leaving two sons George and Benjamin whose title is vested in the defendants.

That before Beacher and Eisenhuth purchased they had express notice from George Body that he and his brother owned one half of the tract and that it was partnership land. Evidence was also given of an ejectment in 1846 against the holders of the legal title and a writ of estrepement in that suit.

It was further shown that Philip Hoy and George Body Sr. paid the taxes on these lands that at least twice before Beacher purchased. The sons of George Body had paid the taxes and that as early as 1844 or 1845 Jacob Eisenhuth moved on the six tracts known as the Hoy and Body lands that he cut timber over the whole tracts and that he had ever since resided thereon with his family.

Defendants further showed a deed from the treasurer of Schuylkill county to the commissioners dated 6th July 1822 for 800 acres of land in Schuylkill township surveyed to and owned by Body and Hoy sold for $23.40 road tax and a redemption deed dated 27th April 1829 by the commissioners to George Body for $52.

The court below, Higgins PJ, instructed the jury that upon the whole evidence the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs whereupon the defendants removed the cause to this court and here assigned for error that the court below erred in so charging the jury.

FWJ Hughes and Hoffman, for plaintiffs in error. -- The payment of the purchase money to the commonwealth by George Body and Philip Hoy constituted them in equity tenants in common of the whole body of lands surveyed: Sampson v. Sampson, 4 S & R. 333-4; Cluggage v. Duncan 1 S. & R. 117.

BW Cumming, for defendants in error A party entitled to a resulting trust is required to act promptly. Equity refuses its aid after 21 years: Peebles v. Reading, 8 S & R 493; Price on Limitations, 156; Strimpfler v. Roberts, 6 Harris 298.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Strong J -- The defendants below stood upon an alleged equity. The evidence given to prove that it ever had any existence was slight, and it is doubtful whether a chancellor would have listened to it asserted as it was against a regular legal title. It is said to have been a resulting trust in Joseph Hoy in favour of George Body, in consideration that the latter had paid part of the purchase money of a warrant issued to Hoy.

That payment is proved only by the testimony of Joseph Toll who testified that his father in law Philip Hoy and George Body took up the land that each paid one half in the office and by the testimony of George Body Jr who says that old Hoy and his father took up the six tracts in partnership each paid one half. Neither witness states that he was present when the alleged payment was made nor what wore his means of knowledge of any payment In cases of parol sales where the attempt is to evade the statute of frauds by converting the vendor into a trustee for the vendee by partial execution it has repeatedly been held to be the duty of the court to reject all evidence of a verbal contract if in the judgment of the court when taken as true it does not make out such a case as would induce a chancellor to decree a conveyance: Brawdy v. Brawdy, 7 Barr 157; Poorman v. Kilgore, 2 Casey 371; per Lowrie J. There is at least equal reason for applying the rule to an attempt to set up a resulting trust against a legal title.

But assuming that in this case such a trust was proved did exist when the plaintiffs below brought their ejectment. The warrant was issued on the 24th of May 1815 to Joseph Hoy. Then, if ever, Body paid part of the purchase money, and then, if ever, the resulting trust was born. From that time until June 7th, 1842, a period of more than twenty seven years, neither George Body nor any one claiming under him ever asserted his equitable title, in such a manner as to keep it alive. Nor did Joseph Hoy, the warrantee, or those claiming under him, ever acknowledge its existence. So far from any such acknowledgment was the fact that patent for the land was taken in the name of Joseph Hoy alone the 8th of July 1815, which was a denial of ownership in Body. The facts proved, that Body and his children paid taxes assessed upon a larger body of lands, including that in dispute, but assessed as one tract, called Hoy and Body, part of which was warranted and patented to them, and that George redeemed that large tract in 1829, after it had been sold for taxes, amount to no assertion of this pretended latent equity. Those acts were necessary to save the lands patented to the Bodys, and are consistent with entire forgetfulness of any equitable claim tract patented to Joseph Hoy.

The case is, therefore, embraced within the principle of Strimp v. Roberts, 6 Harris 283, and is ruled by it. The general doctrine of that case is, "that where a warrant is issued to one person, and the purchase money is paid to another, and the patent is afterwards taken out by the nominal warrantee, the right him who paid the purchase money is gone, unless he takes the land, or brings ejectment to recover it within twenty one from the date of the warrant, and after that lapse of time he cannot recover, no matter how clearly he may be able to prove the legal owner was in the beginning a trustee for him."

It further ruled in that case, "that evidence of purchase money paid the plaintiff as the ground work of his title, ought to be rejected the court, if the date of the payment be more than twenty-one years before suit brought, unless it be accompanied by an offer to such acknowledgments on the part of the warrantee as will the case out of the rule here laid down."

So just is this of limitation that the legislature have now adopted it, and have even restricted the period within which a resulting trust be enforced to five years: Act of 22d April 1856 P. L. 532. It follows that the equitable title, which the defendants attempted to set up, had no existence.

This view of the case renders it unnecessary to consider the effect of the ejectment brought to June Term 1846, against the holders of the legal title. The resulting trust having expired long before that time notice if lis pendens be notice of a latent equity, was utterly unavailing to give it new life.

Judgment affirmed.

5. Census in 1860 in Mahanoy City, Schuylkill, PA. ⁷ The 1860 census recorded Jacob Eisenhuth [indexed as Eisenhood due to poor handwriting], laborer, 70, living with wife Lydia, 65; son Jacob, day laborer, 28, and daughter Margaret, 19. Everyone was born in Pennsylvania. The post office as DIt Man.

Jacob married Lydia Alice Huffman, daughter of Ludwig Lewis Huffman and Catharine, in 1816 in Newtown, Schuylkill, PA.¹ (Lydia Alice Huffman was born in 1794 in Newtown, Schuylkill, PA ¹ and died on 14 Mar 1880 in Gilberton, Schuylkill, PA ⁸.)