Jack v. Woods
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 29 Pa. 375 |
| Parties | Jack versus Woods. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Williams and Sproul, for plaintiff in error.
Burke and Hall, for defendant in error.
It is the title that descended to Frances Thompson, that is in dispute, both plaintiff and defendant claiming it. The plaintiff shows a regular conveyance of it to him, and the defendant offers to show a prior conveyance to persons whose title he now holds; but the documents are lost, and he is compelled to resort to secondary evidence.
We may assume that there was an article of agreement between R. C. Thompson and John Neel, by which the former agreed to convey to the latter the whole title, including that of Frances. This is, of course, insufficient to affect the title of Frances, unless she, in some effectual mode, was party to it. In relation to this instrument, therefore, it was necessary to prove to the court that it was executed and delivered, and that Francis was a party to it, though not named in it, nor signing it, before secondary evidence could be given of its contents.
We do not discover any evidence sufficient to make her a party to it. None was offered except to show that she was present when money was paid on it, and made no objection; but the proof of this entirely failed.
But even if the proof had been full, it would not have availed; for R. C. Thompson took a mortgage to himself to secure the purchase-money of that agreement, and afterwards pursued it to judgment and sale of Neel's right, and became the purchaser himself; and the effect of this was simply to conceal his unsuccessful sale, and not to get a new title on his own account.
The defendant also relied on a deed to Neel, said to be lost. We may assume that there was evidence of the existence of this deed; but we see no evidence of its execution by Frances. R. C. Thompson and Neel think it was never delivered, and neither of them can tell whether Frances had signed it or not; and certainly her participation in the transaction must be made out, by evidence based on her own acts, and not on R. C. Thompson's. The recital in the mortgage does not prove it, for she was not a party to that. She cannot be called a privy to the transaction until the principal question is proved: her joining in the agreement or in the deed.
When a witness has given his deposition in a cause, and afterwards his memory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...absent, and his former testimony, if otherwise admissible, may be read in evidence”--citing 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 163; Jack v. Woods, 29 Pa. 375;Emig v. Diehl, 76 Pa. 359. See, also, Harriman v. Brown, 8 Leigh (Va.) 697. It was also held in Stout v. Cook, 47 Ill. 530, that where a witn......
-
Logan v. Gardner
... ... disaffirming her deed: Irvine v. Irvine, supra; Chapman ... v. Chapman, 59 Pa. 214; Miranville v ... Silverthorn, 48 Pa. 149; Woods v. Wilson, 37 ... Pa. 384; Arnold v. Cornman, 50 Pa. 368. As she had ... the rights of a feme-sole, her silent acquiescence ought to ... Thomas, 12 Pa. 209; Burke v. Hammond, 76 Pa ... 172; Rousher v. Hamm, 3 Brewst. 233; McCredy v ... Navigation Co., 3 Wh. 424; Jack v. Woods, 29 ... Pa. 375. There are four essential requisites of a deed ... conveying a married woman's real estate: signing, ... sealing, ... ...
-
Brenner v. Lesher
... ... obligation or conveyance is in issue (McCredy v ... Schuylkill Navig'n Co., 3 Whart. 424, 440; Jack ... v. Woods, 29 Pa. 375; Laubach v. Meyers, 147 ... Pa. 447, 452; Burr, Committee, v. Kase et al., 168 ... Pa. 81) are to be distinguished. [3] ... ...
-
Tate v. Clement
... ... 194 ... A ... recital in a deed under which the party offering the recital ... does not claim is not evidence for him: Jack v ... Woods, 29 Pa. 375; Dean v. Connelly, 6 Pa. 239; ... James v. Letzler, 8 W. & S. 192. The assertion of an ... alleged fact in a deed dated ... ...