Chapman v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 28 November 1868
• Citation: 59 Pa. 214
• Parties: Chapman <I>versus</I> Chapman and Gansamer.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

59 Pa. 214

Chapman versus Chapman and Gansamer.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 23, 1868.

November 28, 1868.

October 23d 1868.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Erie county: No. 46, to October and November Term 1868.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. C. Marshall, for plaintiff in error.—Estoppels are not favored. The facts to constitute an estoppel must be made out as fully and clearly as would establish a parol sale of land: Miranville v. Silverthorn, 14 Wright 147. A man can be as easily cheated by perjury in establishing an estoppel as in a parol contract: Washabaugh v. Enterpin, 12 Casey 513. The primary ground of estoppel is fraud in a party to assert what he before denied: Hill v. Epley, 7 Casey 334; Coleman v. Rowland, 2 Am. Law Reg. 508; Commonwealth v. Moltz, 10 Barr 531; Hugus v. Walker, 2 Jones 173. A fraudulent silence only whilst Gansamer was making improvements would not estop the plaintiff: Crest v. Jack, 3 Watts 239; Jack v. Bian, cited in Swartz v. Swartz, 4 Barr 358. There was that which would put Gansamer on notice, and that would bind him: Knoff v. Thompson, 4 Harris 362; Alexander v. Kerr, 2 Rawle 20. The evidence was too weak to submit to a jury to take the plaintiff's land: Moore v. Small, 7 Harris 465.

J. H. Walker, for defendant in error.—The doctrine of estoppel as established in Pennsylvania sustains the judge's ruling: Hill v. Epley, 7 Casey 333; Maple v. Kussart, 3 P. F. Smith 352; 2 Washburn on Real Property 458; McKelvey v. Turby, 4 W. & S. 323; Epley v. Witherow, 7 Watts 163.

The opinion of the court was delivered, November 28th 1868, by AGNEW, J.

Positive acts tending to mislead one ignorant of the truth, which do mislead him to his injury, are a good ground of estoppel, and ignorance of title on part of him who is estopped will not excuse his act: Robinson v. Tustin, 2 Penna. R. 22; Commonwealth v. Moltz, 10 Barr 530; Vanleer's Appeal, 12 Harris 228; Beaupland v. McKean, 4 Casey 131; Keeler v. Vantyle, 6 Barr 253.

Mrs. Allen married John V. Chapman's father at John's earnest solicitation. David H. Chapman, the father, was to convey to her one-half of his village property as an inducement to her to accept him. John, while endeavoring to obtain her consent, professed his willingness that his father should give her the half, or even the whole of it. Mrs. Allen was the mother of his wife, and his own hope was that his father would give him a portion of his farm. He pressed her most anxiously, saying he had nothing of his own, and if she did not marry his father, the latter would squander his property, and give him nothing to raise his children upon. He told her of his father's intention to deed her one-half of his village property, and brought the subscribing witness and the justice who took the acknowledgment. He then lived in the house with his father. Mrs. Allen became Mrs. Chapman, and now John seeks to enforce against her a title made known to her only since her marriage, an unrecorded lease to John instead of his father.

The marriage proved to be a source of unhappiness to her, and she has indeed been misled to her injury. Marriage is a valuable consideration. Surely no clearer case of estoppel could be made to appear. It was argued that John did not know that the deed was for the half of the lot in suit, because the evidence does not show it was read in his presence. But suffice it to say the evidence leaves no doubt in our minds of his knowledge that it was this property. All the circumstances conspire to prove it, and his conversation with Mrs. Chapman about the mortgage to his uncle, Moses Chapman, which embraces this lot, telling her in this conversation that his father and uncle would deprive her of her property by means of this mortgage, is ample evidence of his knowledge of its identity.

The question of estoppel in favor of Jos. Gansamer, the purchaser of the lot under this mortgage, is perhaps not so clear as that in her case, but it is sufficiently supported by the evidence. As to Gansamer, there was no such positive act, but there was a silence so suggestive, so pregnant with ill to him, the court...