Cochran v. Sanderson

• Decision Date: 31 October 1892
• Docket Number: 21
• Citation: 151 Pa. 591,25 A. 121
• Parties: Cochran et al., Appellants, v. Sanderson et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

25 A. 121

151 Pa. 591

Cochran et al., Appellants, v. Sanderson et al

No. 21

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 31, 1892

Argued October 4, 1892

Appeal, No. 21, Oct. T., 1892, by plaintiffs, D. W. Cochran et al., from judgment of C.P. Westmoreland Co., Aug. T 1889, No. 140, on verdict for defendants.

Ejectment. The facts appear by opinion of Supreme Court.

On the trial, before RAYBURN, P.J., defendants offered in evidence draft of the property made by John McIntyre. Objected to because it was not a draft of the entire tract, purpart C as marked upon the draft not having been surveyed at all by the witness. Objection overruled and evidence admitted. [1]

Defendants under objection, offered the record evidence recited in the opinion of the Supreme Court for the purpose of showing title. [2]

Plaintiff offered to prove by Henry Cochran, one of the plaintiffs, that he never had any guardian or notice of the proceedings for specific performance. Objected to and offer rejected. [3]

The court gave binding instructions for defendants. [4]

Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.

Errors assigned were (1, 2) admission of defendants' evidence, quoting the offers but not the bills of exception or the evidence, except in the form of docket entries; (3) rejection of plaintiffs' offer, quoting offer but not bill of exception; and (4) instructions, quoting them.

Judgment affirmed.

W. D. Moore, with him S. A. Kline and J. Chas. Dicken, for appellants, cited Armor v. Cochrane, 66 Pa. 308.

Paul H. Gaither, with him J. A. Marchand, D. S. Atkinson, John M. Peoples and G. Dallas Albert, for appellees, cited Hoffman v. Coster, 2 Wh. 453.

Before STERRETT, GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL and HEYDRICK, JJ.

OPINION

MR. STERRETT, JUSTICE:

Early in the present century, John Cochran, the first, owned a tract of land of which he afterwards died seized. By proceedings in partition, the same land was adjudged to his son John Cochran, the second, father of present plaintiffs, and the legal title thereto remained in him at the time of his decease in 1844. Afterwards, his brother William Cochran, uncle of the plaintiffs, presented his petition to the orphans' court, alleging that his deceased brother John had contracted to convey to him a part of said land, and praying specific performance of said contract, etc. Thereupon the court appointed John Cochran, the third, guardian ad litem of his brothers, the present plaintiffs, who were then minors, and the matter was so proceeded in that specific performance, as prayed for, was duly decreed, and thus the title to that part of the land described in said petition became vested in William Cochran. By sundry mesne conveyances, etc., the part thus decreed to William became vested in defendants.

In August, 1853, by proceedings in partition, the residue of said first mentioned tract of land, being all the real estate of which John Cochran, the second, died seized, except that embraced in the decree of specific performance aforesaid became vested in John Cochran, the third, brother of present plaintiffs. When the inquest of partition in that case was awarded, the court appointed William McChesney guardian ad litem of said plaintiffs, who were still minors. By sundry conveyances, etc., the title thus acquired by John Cochran, the third, became vested in the...