Aitkin's Heirs v. Young
| Decision Date | 10 September 1849 |
| Citation | 12 Pa. 15 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | The Heirs and Legal Representatives of WILLIAM AITKIN, MARY NELSON, and SUSAN DICKSON, Devisees under the Will of JOHN AITKIN, deceased, <I>v.</I> THOMAS B. YOUNG. |
G. P. Hamilton, for the plaintiffs in error.
1. The record is not evidence on the principle "res inter alios acta." We were not parties to it — had no notice: could not examine witnesses — and could not appeal. We were not in privity of estate with Janet Aitkin, the respondent there — we hold directly from John Aitkin, and not through her. But the decree was a nullity for want of jurisdiction — the petition exhibits only an executory agreement, within the statute of frauds, &c.
The Court should have withdrawn this evidence from the jury: the facts proved were insufficient in law to constitute a valid agreement under the statute.
The proceedings are imperfect, never having been conducted to a final decree under the act of 1818.
2. We claim the ground, not the rent. Mrs. A. was a stranger to us in blood and estate, and we cannot be affected by her acts.
4. The alleged agreement was made in December, 1826, when John Young was residing on the premises, where he had been residing from the date of the first agreement. Thomas was then a child, residing with his father, and there was no change of the possession from John to Thomas. Pugh v. Good, 3 W. & S. 56; Brawdy v. Brawdy, 7 Barr, 157.
5. Thomas B. Young's possession was a mere continuation of the original possession of his father, which was not adverse — his possession was not contemporaneous with and in pursuance of the parol contract for a perpetual lease.
Loomis and McCandless, contrà.
1. The act of 1818 did not require notice to be given to Aitkin's heirs or devisees, but the Court directed it to be given to his executors, which, it must be presumed, was done. The regularity of the proceeding, however, cannot be questioned collaterally, and cannot be revised or reversed here in this form. It was binding on the Court below. It was evidence of the contract under which we claim title, by the act of 1818; imperfect as evidence of title, but a good foundation for other evidence. As to the decree being a nullity, it is sufficient to cite Hays v. Shannon, 5 Watts, 550.
2. The payments to Mrs. Aitkin were in pursuance of the very terms of the contract — she held a life-estate in the premises under John Aitkin's will, and our right to continued enjoyment of the premises depended on compliance with our agreement with him to pay the rent. We had a right to show our compliance with that contract, into whose hands soever the right to receive the rent devolved.
3. By a change in the aspect of the case, after this evidence was admitted, it became immaterial.
4. The Court did not so charge the jury, as is here affirmed. On the trial below, the Court answered the plaintiffs' first, second, and fourth points affirmatively, and declined answering the third, as it involved a question of fact. It is a plain mistake of the numbers of the points, as the answers stand recorded in the charge.
5. The Court did not take the fact from the jury — the possession, its character and qualities, were left to the jury.
The opinion of this Court was delivered by ROGERS, J.
We do not perceive that any error was committed in admitting the proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas, on the application of Thomas B. Young, to prove the contract between John Aitkin and John Young for a perpetual lease of the property in controversy. This application was made under the provisions of the Act of the 10th March, 1818, a farther supplement to the Act of the 31st March, 1792, an Act to enable executors and administrators, by leave of the Court, to convey lands and tenements contracted for with their decedents. The petition sets out a state of facts, which, if true, brought the case within the jurisdiction of the Court, and called for its interposition. The Court, on the prayer of the petitioner, directed proof of the contract to be made in open court, and ordered notice to be given to the executor of John Aitkin. Under this order proof was made of the contract, which was adjudged to be sufficient. This was received by the Court, not as conclusive, but as some proof of the facts therein contained. For this purpose we think the record and depositions were properly received. There can be no error in this, for the Act expressly says, said petition and adjudication, as well as a copy of the record thereof, shall be evidence of the facts set forth in said petition.
The Act contains no direction as to whom notice shall be given, nor does it even prescribe that any notice whatever shall be given. But the uniform practice has been in conformity to every rule of common sense and common justice to give notice, and as the deed is directed to be made by the executors or administrators, that notice in all cases is ordered to be given to them, as the representatives of the heirs, devisees, and all parties having an interest in the premises. For some cause which has not been explained, no further proceedings were had than to prove the contract. No deed was executed and delivered by the executors. If this had been done it would have concluded the title so that its validity could not be contested in a collateral proceeding. That it is evidence for the purpose it was admitted, is clear, as the heirs and devisees, although not actually, were virtually, parties to the proceedings.
It is said that the Court erred in instructing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayer v. Walsh
... ... 260; Greenlee v. Greenlee, 22 Pa. 225; Myers v ... Byerly, 45 Pa. 368; Aitkins v. Young, 12 Pa ... 15; Frye v. Shepler, 7 Pa. 91; Miller v ... Zufall, 113 Pa. 317; Anderson ... $800, and Joseph $1,000, to hold to themselves, their heirs ... and assigns forever; provided, that my daughter, Alice Walsh, ... may, at her option, within ... ...
-
Shaffer v. Eichert
...528; Burkholder v. Stahl, 58 Pa. 371; Sipes v. Mann, 39 Pa. 414; McKelvy v. Wilson, 9 Pa. 183; Dorman v. Turnpike Co., 3 W. 126; Aitkin v. Young, 12 Pa. 15; Uplinger Bryan, 12 Pa. 219; Snevily v. Egle, 1 W. & S. 480; Moore Tp. Road, 17 Pa. 116; Lower Merion Road, 18 Pa. 238; Robertson v. Re......
-
Commonwealth v. Levi
...orphans' court were admissible: Com. v. Kaufman, 9 Pa.Super. 310; Com. v. Beale, 19 Pa.Super. 434; Com. v. King, 35 Pa.Super. 454; Aitkin v. Young, 12 Pa. 15; Coursin v. Ins. Co., 46 Pa. 323; Woodward Garey, 42 Legal Int. 490. Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head, Beaver an......
-
State v. Sievert
...to the instruction the court did give. But the defendant predicated no error on the instruction or requested an instruction. In Aitkin v. Young, 12 Pa. 15, the court "When evidence, competent and material at the time it is received, becomes by a turn in the case incompetent and immaterial a......