Patchin v. Seward Coal Company
| Decision Date | 03 January 1910 |
| Docket Number | 83 |
| Citation | 75 A. 250,226 Pa. 159 |
| Parties | Patchin, Appellant, v. Seward Coal Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 6, 1909
Appeal, No. 83, Oct. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C.P. Westmoreland Co., Nov. T., 1906, No. 548, on verdict for defendants in case of Edward Patchin et al. v. Seward Coal Company, et al. Affirmed.
Ejectment for land in St. Clair township. Before McCONNELL, J.
At the trial it appeared that the land in dispute had been sold by A. D. Bates, committee in lunacy of George Patchin, in the latter's lifetime to the predecessor in title of the defendant. George Patchin resided in Clearfield county, and his committee secured an order of court, directing the sale of land in Clearfield county, and also authorizing an application to the court of Westmoreland county for an order to sell the lands in controversy. The records both of Clearfield and Westmoreland county showed on their face service of notice of the proceedings on the widow and next of kin.
The court under objection and exception admitted these records. [1, 2]
When Mollie Patchin was on the stand the following offer was made:
Mr Robbins: It is proposed to ask the witness on the stand, Miss Mollie Patchin, who is a daughter of George E. Patchin deceased, and one of his heirs and next of kin, with regard to the alleged notice attached to the proceedings at No. 252 of December Term, 1897, in the court of common pleas of Clearfield county, which has been offered in evidence by the defendants, whether or not such notice was presented to her and when, and whether or not the several names signed thereto were signed by the proper persons, or how they were signed, and also to inquire whether she was present when the alleged notice was signed, and who signed it -- for the purpose of showing that the alleged notice is not such notice as required by the act of 1836 to be given by a committee of a lunatic prior to an application for sale of real estate in order to give the court jurisdiction; and that the signatures to said notice are not genuine; that the same is not signed by the parties purporting to have signed the same: and also for the purpose of rebutting any presumption that might arise upon the face of the paper itself.
Mr. Moorhead: To this offer counsel for defendants object, for the reason that there is nothing in the pleadings in this case to show that any question such as is offered now to be proved with regard to the signatures not being genuine, was heretofore raised; and, second, that the proof itself would be immaterial and irrelevant so far as a purchaser under said proceedings would be concerned, or the present defendants holding under such purchaser.
3. The witness now offered was one of the children of George Patchin who is admitted by the pleadings to have been of full age at the time said notice was given.
4. The other purpose in the offer, to show that it was not such a notice as the law requires, is not one about which the witness can testify.
Mr. Robbins: We add to the offer: to be followed by evidence that Edward Patchin, H. C. Patchin and Frank Patchin did not sign the alleged notice attached to the pleadings heretofore offered in evidence by the defendants; that they never heard of the same or saw the same until they appeared here at Greensburg in connection with the trial of this case two days ago, nor did they authorize any person else to sign said notice for them or approve of any person's action in connection therewith.
Mr. Moorhead: The same objection.
The Court: The proofs that are now offered are substantially an attack upon the record in the common pleas of Clearfield county on the ground of fraud, and no basis for an attack on that ground having been made in their pleadings, the first objection made to the admissibility of the evidence is sustained. An exception may be noted in favor of the plaintiffs. [3, 4]
Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.
Errors assigned were (1, 2) rulings on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions, and (10) in giving binding instructions for defendants.
John E. Kunkle and A. L. Cole, with them Edward E. Robbins, for appellants. -- The court of Clearfield county had no jurisdiction to make the order: Spencer v. Jennings, 123 Pa. 184; Mitchell v. Spaulding, 206 Pa. 220; Bennett v. Hayden, 145 Pa. 586.
The rule that the record imports absolute verity which may not be impeached by parole does not apply where fraud is charged, and the fraud need not appear on the face of the record itself. It is sufficient that by giving effect to the record, fraud would result: Mitchell v. Kintzer, 5 Pa. 216; Kintzer v. Mitchell, 8 Pa. 64; Lowry v. McMillan, 8 Pa. 157; Thorne v. Ins. Co., 80 Pa. 15; Hemphill v. Pry, 183 Pa. 593; Smith v. Wildman, 178 Pa. 245.
An unauthorized decree of an orphans' court for the sale of land will not stand until reversed in a regular court of appeals, but may be questioned in a collateral suit by or against a person claiming under that decree: Messinger v. Kintner, 4 Binn. 97; Snyder v. Snyder, 6 Binn, 483; Sager v. Mead, 164 Pa. 125.
Wm. Williams, with him Jas. S. Moorhead, Robt. W. Smith and W. David Lloyd, for appellees. -- The facts set out in the petition determine the jurisdiction: Bennett v. Hayden, 145 Pa. 586.
The court of common pleas of Westmoreland county was bound to give full faith and credit to the decree and order of the court of common pleas of Clearfield county.
The judgment of every court pronounced on a subject within its jurisdiction is conclusive and binding on all other courts, except those only before which it comes by appeal, certiorari or writ of error: McDonald v. Simcox, 98 Pa. 619; Sweeney v. Girolo, 154 Pa. 609; Clayton's Est., 1 Chester Co. Rep. 21.
A sale of real estate by order of the orphans' court can only be invalidated by establishing a want of jurisdiction of the court, or by fraud practiced in effecting it: Gallaher v. Collins, 7 Watts, 552; Leedom v. Lombaert, 80 Pa. 381; Haines v. Hall, 209 Pa. 104; Sheets v. Hawk, 14 S. & R. 173; McDonald v. Simcox, 98 Pa. 619.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
This was an action of ejectment for the recovery of 106 acres of land in St. Clair township, Westmoreland county, brought by Edwin Patchin and others, who were heirs at law of George Patchin, deceased, against the Seward Coal Company. Upon the trial a verdict for the defendants was directed, and afterwards a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was refused, and judgment was entered upon the verdict.
It appears that on November 26, 1897, George Patchin, a resident of Clearfield county, was declared a lunatic by an inquest held in that county. His son, Edwin Patchin, was appointed his committee, but subsequently resigned, and on January 5, 1900, A. D. Bates was appointed committee in his place. The lunatic owned real estate in Clearfield, Indiana and Westmoreland counties, the latter being the land which is the subject of the present suit in ejectment.
On February 23, 1900, A. D. Bates, committee of the lunatic presented a petition to the court of common pleas of Clearfield county, praying for an order to sell the real estate of the lunatic in Indiana and Westmoreland counties for the payment of his debts and the maintenance and support of himself and his family. An order...
To continue reading
Request your trial