Ferguson et al. v. Staver
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Citation | 33 Pa. 411 |
| Parties | Ferguson et al. versus Staver. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Even if this judgment were to stand, we do not see how the sheriff could execute an habere facias otherwise than by putting the plaintiff into possession in common with the defendants. But the parties have treated the case as a claim to exclude one who is wrongfully in possession as a tenant in common, and we shall take it so.
It is admitted, that Staver and Kissel were owners together of the land, and that Kissel conveyed his share to Ferguson and Betts. But Staver claims under a previous purchase from Kissel. Does he show a title that is valid under the statute of frauds? We think not.
There is a written settlement of partnership accounts between Staver and Kissel, and an agreement by Kissel to execute a deed; but a deed for what? It does not even say for land; and, if it means land, it does not profess to say for what land. The contract must be in writing. Its subject-matter is an essential part of it — and without it, there is no contract. If the subject-matter, the land, be described, we admit evidence in order to apply the description to the land; but we cannot admit parol evidence, first, to describe the land sold, and then, to apply the description. If authorities are wanted for this, they can be found in Soles v. Hickman, 20 State Rep. 182. The defendants' first, second, and fourth points ought to have been affirmed; and, perhaps, more might have been asked for.
It was error to admit Kissel's declarations made after he had parted with his title; but the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruff's Appeal
... ... Meily, 106 Pa. 536; Thomas v. Loose, 114 Pa. 35; Cullmans v. Lindsay, 114 Pa. 166; Callen v. Ferguson, 29 Pa. 247; Churcher v. Guernsey, 39 Pa. 84; Du Bois v. Baum, 46 Pa. 537; Miller v. Henlan, 51 Pa. 265; Cadwalader's App., 57 Pa. 158; Russell v ... Staver, 33 Pa. 411; Smith & Fleck's App., 69 Pa. 474; Ross v. Baker, 72 Pa. 186; Evans v. Prothero, 13 Eng. L. & Eq. 163. The phraseology of the contract ... ...
-
Reilly v. Gautschi
... ... McEldowney, 46 Pa. 334; Soles v. Hickman, 20 ... Pa. 180; Lee's App., 12 W.N.C. 183; Reed, Stat. Frauds, ... 408, ch. XVIII.; Ferguson v. Staver, 33 Pa. 411; ... Troup v. Troup, 87 Pa. 149; Smith & Fleek's ... App., 69 Pa. 474; Merill's App., 16 W.N.C. 346; Tripp ... v. Bishop, 56 ... ...
-
Mudd v. Dillon
... ... Albee, 50 ... Iowa 429; Ozark Land and Lumber Co. v. Franks, 156 ... Mo. 673, 57 S.W. 540.] ... It was ... held in Ferguson v. Staver, 33 Pa. 411, that courts ... never permit parol evidence to be given, first to describe ... the land, and then apply the description. So ... ...
-
Wilmore Coal Co. v. Holsopple
... ... parties, a consideration, the subject-matter, and be signed ... by the party to be charged: Smith & Fleek's App., 69 Pa ... 474; Ferguson & Staver, 33 Pa. 411; Bubb v. Parker, Etc., ... Oil Co., 252 Pa. 26; Clark v. Smith, 25 Pa ... 137; Shiffer v. Broadhead, 134 Pa. 539 ... ...