Lingenfelter v. Richey
| Decision Date | 06 July 1869 |
| Citation | 62 Pa. 123 |
| Parties | Lingenfelter <I>et al. versus</I> Richey. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county: No. 31, to May Term 1869.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Tate, Kimmell & Lingenfelter and Russell, for plaintiffs in error, cited: Clark v. Trindle, 2 P. F. Smith 495.
G. H. Spang and W. M. Hall, for defendant in error.—As to effect of continued payment of taxes they cited: McCaffrey v. Fisher, 4 W. & S. 182; Bank v. Woods, 1 Jones 115; Kelsey v. Murray, 9 Watts 111; Taylor v. Hertzog, 10 Barr 315.
The opinion of the court was delivered, July 6th 1869, by WILLIAMS, J.
This was an action of trespass to try the title to 224 acres of land, being the one-half of a tract of 448 acres surveyed on a warrant granted to Valentine Hollar in 1796. Both parties claimed title under Abraham Sparks, who, by deed dated the 25th of April 1837, granted and conveyed the land in controversy to Solomon Hollar. If this deed was intended as an absolute conveyance of the land for the use of Hollar, the title was in the plaintiff. But if it was made to Hollar in trust for Sparks, the equitable title was in the defendant Lingenfelter, unless the trust had become extinguished by lapse of time. As the deed on its face purported to be an absolute conveyance, the burthen of showing that it was made in trust for the grantor, and that the trust had been recognised and kept alive by the acts and declarations of the parties, was on the defendants.
The court, both in the general charge and in answer to the points submitted on both sides, instructed the jury, in substance, that if they found that the deed was an absolute one, designed to transfer the title from Sparks to Hollar, their verdict should be for the plaintiff. But if they found that the deed was in trust for Sparks, and that after its execution he entered on the land and exercised such acts of exclusive dominion and ownership over it as clearly indicated an intention to claim it as his own, then the trust was executed, and their verdict should be for the defendants. The court expressly instructed the jury that, in order to avoid the deed under which the plaintiff claimed, it was not necessary that Sparks should have erected a house upon the land, or taken actual possession of it, but the defendants were bound to show that he, from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence v. King
...is on him who alleges it, and the burden is not a light one: Meyers v. Robinson, 74 Pa. 269; Loughran v. Kummer, 297 Pa. 179; Lingenfelter v. Richey, 62 Pa. 123; Lawrence's Est., 286 Pa. No confidential relationship was shown to exist between plaintiff and defendant: Leedom v. Palmer, 274 P......
-
Feeley v. Hoover
...32 Pa. 371; Kellum v. Smith, 33 Pa. 164; Kistler's App., 73 Pa. 393; McGinity v. McGinity, 63 Pa. 38; Nixon's App., 63 Pa. 279; Lingenfelter v. Richey, 62 Pa. 123; Plumer Guthrie, 76 Pa. 441; Hayes's App., 123 Pa. 110; Kimmel v. Smith, 117 Pa. 183; Zuver v. Clark, 104 Pa. 222; Kimble v. Smi......
-
Forrester v. Watts
...and unconditional deed, although expressed in verying phraseology, is in effect that there must be no room for doubt. In Lingenfelter v. Richey, 62 Pa. 123, it is 'As they claimed title to the land against the express language of the deed, they were bound to show by clear and satisfactory e......