Edwards v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 02 October 1882 |
| Citation | 100 Pa. 330 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edwards and wife <I>versus</I> Morgan. |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ. GREEN, J., absent
ERROR to the court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county: Of January term 1882, No. 46.
Palmer (with him De Witt & Fuller), for plaintiffs in error. —The plaintiffs below were not entitled to recover unless they established one of the following propositions. (1) That P. D. Edwards, having an equitable ownership in this land, collusively caused the said conveyance to be made to his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. (2) That P. D. Edwards had such prior outstanding title to this land from Nagle as, per se, avoided the conveyance to Elizabeth Edwards. Of the first proposition no evidence was given. In the endeavor to establish the second no legal title by deed or other instrument was shown, and no equitable title out of the statute of frauds was shown: Hart v. Carroll, 4 Norris 510. The proofs offered by them were vague declarations by Frederick Nagle twelve years ago, that he had let his son-in-law, Edwards, have a lot of land; declarations by Edwards in 1870 that he had bought certain lands, and again in 1873 that he had bought certain other lands; proof that in 1870 a storehouse was built on part of the land, but not of its having been paid for at the sole expense of Edwards, and finally, proof that Edwards did business in the store. There was, therefore, (1) no clear, direct, precise and indubitable proof of a contract: Riddel v. Dixon, 2 Barr 372; Moore v. Small, 7 H. 469; Ackerman v. Fisher, 7 P. F. S. 457. (2) No sufficient evidence designating boundaries: Woods v. Farmare, 10 Watts 204; Shellhammer v. Ashbaugh, 2 Nor. 24 (3) Nor of possession taken under this contract: Ackerman v. Fisher, supra. (4) Nor of consideration paid. (5) Nor of such valuable improvements as could not be compensated in damages: Irwin v. Irwin, 10 Casey 525.
Even if a valid equitable title by parol contract had been shown in P. D. Edwards prior to the conveyance, still the legal title might have been taken with his assent, in his wife's name, so as to vest in her an indefeasible estate, if this were not done in fraud of his creditors.
E. P. & J. V. Darling, for defendants in error.—The case shows a valid transfer of title from Nagle to Edwards, in 1870, by a parol contract of sale, out of the statute of frauds. In Hart v. Carroll, 4 Nor. 512, Mr. Justice WOODWARD says: "Rigid as the rules of law are that are prescribed for this class of controversies, it is still the law that `where a parol contract of sale is precise as to its terms and subject, and the vendee has taken possession in pursuance of it and made valuable improvements with the assent of the vendor, it is not within the statute of frauds.'" And see McGibbeny v. Burmaster, 3 P. F. S. 332; Milliken v. Drave, 17 P. F. S. 233.
Where there has been a change of possession, and other circumstances, such as payment of a part of the price, it has been invariably held that the sale is good without writing: Mitchell on Contracts for sale of land in Pennsylvania. The land in question was at the intersection of two cross-roads, and thus separated from all other lands of Nagle, and the conversations by Nagle and Edwards with the witnesses took place upon the land itself or within sight of it. There could be no question, therefore, as to the land referred to.
That there was a contract by which Nagle sold and Edwards bought this land in 1870, and took possession, and paid the purchase money, and made valuable improvements on it, is shown by the declarations of Nagle and Edwards to the witnesses called. The possession of Edwards was continuous and exclusive. The offer of the evidence of Sarah Nagle was incompetent, as tending to contradict her own deed.
The court rightly charged that the evidence discloses no fraud or collusion by Nagle and Edwards to defraud creditors of Edwards, or any attempt on the part of Edwards to delay, defraud or hinder his creditors, and that under the testimony, either Edwards or Nagle had the right to convey the land in dispute to Elizabeth Edwards. Although the plaintiffs were allowed to prove fraud against the creditors in the judgment upon which the land was sold at sheriff's sale, if they could, they failed, and the jury were not permitted to find the fact.
It is true that an equitable title to land may be surrendered by parol, or that a parol contract for sale of land may be orally cancelled, but there was no evidence that Edwards surrendered such title to Nagle, or that the alleged contract was cancelled. Both testified that no contract for sale and purchase of the land was ever made between them, and nothing was proved respecting Edwards' assent that the deed should be made to his wife. If a good title had been vested in Edwards, it was not divested by Nagle's conveyance of the legal title to another person. The defendant's second, third and fourth points, resting upon the assumption that Edwards had surrendered an equitable title and assented to the conveyance made by Nagle, were properly refused. Nor was there error in the instruction set out in the fifth assignment. The chief question is, whether there was sufficient evidence of a parol contract for the sale of land by Nagle to Edwards, and of the other requisites essential to the plaintiffs' case, to submit to the jury. If not the sixth and tenth assignments must be sustained.
P. D. Edwards' title, if he had any, was vested in Charles Morgan and E. S. Morgan by the sheriff's deed. They have precisely the right which he had at and before the time of the sheriff's sale. Nagle's title was vested in Elizabeth Edwards by deed dated February 27th 1873. She is in possession. The plaintiffs seek to recover upon an alleged equitable title against the holder of the legal title. They stand in the place of a vendee under an oral contract, who is out of possession, and the defendant, in place of the vendor in possession. To succeed, they must show a case which, in equity, would entitle them to a decree for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fahringer v. Strine's Estate
...presence. A contract is not to be inferred from the declarations of one of the parties.' (p. 459). The language of Edwards v. Morgan, 100 Pa. 330, 336, would appear to limit the Ackerman rule to situations where the claimant and decedent bear a very close family relationship. See also: Poor......
-
Fidelity Insurance Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Moore
... ... made in the absence of the son, should have been excluded: ... Poorman v. Gilgore, 26 Pa. 365; Ackerman v ... Fisher, 57 Pa. 457; Edwards v. Morgan, 100 Pa ... 330; Moyer's App., 105 Pa. 432; Allison v ... Burns, 107 Pa. 50; Burgess v. Burgess, 109 Pa ... 312; McKowen v. McDonald, ... ...
-
Boyer v. Weimer
... ... Erdman, 150 Pa ... 427; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 91 Pa. 462; ... McElfatrick v. Hicks, 21 Pa. 402; Scott v ... Heilager, 14 Pa. 238; Edwards v. Morgan, 100 ... Pa. 330; Burgess v. Burgess, 109 Pa. 312; ... Kitchline v. Lobach, 125 Pa. 295; Reehling v ... Byers, 94 Pa. 316; Battles v ... ...
-
In re Estate of Simmons
...built fences, terraced the garden, and planted trees. Upon these findings, the master, citing Sage v. McGuire, 4 W. & S. 228; Edwards v. Morgan, 100 Pa. 330; Moore v. Small, 19 Pa. 468; Milliken Dravo, 67 Pa. 230; §§ 15, 16, act of February 24, 1834, P.L. 75, reported that the contract was ......