Snyder's Lessee v. Snyder

• Citation: 6 Am.Dec. 493,6 Binn. 483
• Parties: Lessee of ANTHONY SNYDER and others v. SIMON SNYDER.
• Decision Date: 18 June 1814
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

6 Binn. 483

6 Am.Dec. 493

Lessee of ANTHONY SNYDER and others v. SIMON SNYDER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 18, 1814

IN ERROR.

A husband cannot be a witness, where, in consequence of his testimony, his wife may receive a benefit after his death.

Parol evidence is inadmissible to shew that half an acre of land included in a deed by administrators, was excepted out of the estate at the time of sale.

So it is inadmissible to shew that a sheriff had under execution the body and lands of a third person. The execution should be shewn by the records.

A question cannot be put to a witness so framed as to indicate the answer which the party wishes, e.g. " did he assign to you as a reason why he would not bid more for the isle of Q, that he could buy W's land for, & c."

A sale by order of Orphans' Court is not conclusive until reversed on appeal, but may be questioned in an ejectment.

THIS was an ejectment in the Common Pleas of Northumberland county, for 171 acres of land, which the lessors of the plaintiff claimed as the children of John Snyder deceased.

Upon the trial below, the plaintiff proved title in John Snyder at the time of his decease, and there rested his case.

On behalf of the defendant, who was merely the tenant in possession, and claimed no title personally, the real dispute being between the lessors of the plaintiff, and the children of Anthony Selin, to all of whom he stood in the relation of uncle, the following case was then exhibited:

Upon the 19th May 1787, letters of administration to the estate of John Snyder issued to his brother the defendant, to his widow Mary Snyder, and to her brother-in-law John Miller. An original inventory amounting to 130 l. i 5 is. i 10 Id. was shewn from the office, endorsed in the handwriting of the register at that time, " taken and appraised 19th May 1787, by Albright Swineford and George Weyrick, duly qualified for that purpose." On the 1st January 1788, a petition in the handwriting of the defendant was preferred to the Orphans' Court, to which he subscribed his own name and those of the other administrators, setting forth the insufficiency of John Snyder's personal estate to pay the debts, and maintain the children; that the debts then come to the knowledge of the petitioners, were 642 l., and the credits (including 220 l. the amount of the goods sold at vendue) 430 l., leaving a deficiency of 212 l., and praying an order of the Orphans' Court to sell the real estate. On the succeeding day, the defendant was sworn to the truth of the statement by him exhibited with the petition, and an order was granted to sell the real estate on a certain day.

No sale having taken place on this order, a second order was obtained at the instance of the defendant, on the 1st April 1788, to sell on the 27th May following. The premises however were not sold under this second order, and it was again renewed on the 5th October 1790, upon the application of all the administrators, and a public sale was directed to be held at the court-house in Sunbury, on the 12th November following.

Upon the 3d January 1791, a return of sale was made by the administrators, but not signed by them, stating that agreeably to the order of the court, they had sold the said real estate to Anthony Selin for 666 l. i 12 is., he being the best and highest bidder; and the Orphan's Court thereupon confirmed the sale, and directed that it should remain firm and stable for ever.

The administrators afterwards by their deed dated 12th June 1791, wherein the different proceedings in the Orphans' Court were recited, conveyed the premises to Selin; and the deed was duly acknowledged by the defendant on the 2d December 1803, by Mary Snyder (who had married Jacob Kendig ) on the same day; by John Miller on the 27th February 1804, and by Jacob Kendig on the 23d August 1805.

The title being thus shewn out of the lessors of the plaintiff by the sale and conveyance to Selin, they endeavoured to defeat this title by several objections, which may be ranked under three heads. 1. To the proceedings in the Orphans' Court, as being on the face of them irregular and contrary to law. 2. To the proceedings at the time of sale, on the part of Anthony Selin. 3. To the conduct of the defendant in unnecessarily inducing the sale and becoming himself a secret purchaser with Selin.

Under the first head, the objections were 1. That the original petition was signed by one only of the administrators. 2. That there was no proper inventory filed or administration account settled, to authorize the order of sale: the time of filing the former not appearing, and there being but a mere statement in place of account. 3. That the defendant alone was sworn to the truth of the statement accompanying the petition for a sale. 4. That the return of sale was not signed by the administrators.

Under the second head, they produced evidence that Anthony Selin had behaved with much violence at the sale, and had threatened to knock down any person who should bid against him; in consequence of which, a competitor of the name of Bower was deterred, as he said, from offering within 400 l. or 500 l. as much as he otherwise would have done for the property. They at the same time gave evidence that Selin, before and after the sale, said he would buy and had bought for John Snyder's children.

Under the the third head, they gave evidence that A. Selin and the defendant were partners at the time of the sale, that the defendant came into possession after Selin's death, and had spoken of the property as his. They also shewed that John Snyder had purchased this land at sheriff's sale for 627 l. i 10 is.; that he had paid only 100 l. to the sheriff, and had given him his judgment bond for the remainder, which remainder the defendant had not paid for several years after the sale to Selin.

In the course of the exhibition of this and the preceding evidence, the plaintiff's counsel offered Jacob Kendig, the husband of Mary Snyder, as a witness, he having first executed to Anthony Snyder a release of all interest of dower or otherwise in the land in dispute. But the defendant's counsel objected, and the Court, who sustained the objection, sealed a bill of exceptions.

To rebut so much of the plaintiff's objections as were founded on evidence dehors the record, the defendant then offered evidence, 1. To discredit the witnesses of the opposite side, who had sworn as to Selin's conduct and declarations. 2. To explain the circumstances in relation to the defendant's possession, and non-payment of John Snyder's debts.

With a view to the first object, they offered among others the deposition of John Miller, which stated that he as sheriff of Lancaster county, had the real estate of Bower under execution, and a ca. sa. for his body, at the time of his asserted intention to purchase at the sale; and that he went with him to the sale. That Bower never told him after the sale, that he would have given more for the land, if he had not been prevented by Selin. Then followed the question to the witness. Question. " Did said Bower assign to you as a reason why he would not bid more for the isle of Cue, because he could buy Willing's land adjoining Kendig's, for 3 l. per acre, and that on yearly instalments, which in his opinion was equally good with the isle of Cue? " Answer. " He did tell me so, but I cant tell at what particular time." Miller's deposition also stated, that a certain half an acre, of which the defendant was possessed, was excepted out of the sale by the administrators, although contained in their deed to Selin. To this deposition the plaintiffs objected, but the Court received it, and sealed another bill.

On the second branch of the defence, the defendant's counsel offered, 1. An arbitration bond between John Snyder and his brother the defendant, cancelled, and an award in the defendant's favour, by which he became entitled to part of the land included in the ejectment, and a survey of the piece in question referred to in the award, in conformity to which John Snyder in his life-time executed a deed. 2. Certain judgments against Peter Weiser (the owner of the premises when purchased at sheriff's sale by John Snyder ) prior to that under which the sheriff sold; in consequence of which judgments, and the insolvency of the sheriff, the defendant was obliged to use great caution in paying the balance due by John Snyder. To these documents the plaintiffs also objected; but they were admitted, and other bills of exceptions sealed.

In conclusion the Court left the case to the jury as to all matters of fact, expressing at the same time a very strong opinion in favour of the defendant. On the matters of law, they charged that there was sufficient evidence that all necessary forms had been complied with, and that if not, the decrees of the Orphans' Court ordering and confirming the sale, were conclusive until reversed upon appeal; but that if Selin prevented bidding at the sale, and thereby injured it, or if the defendant was a secret purchaser of part, the sale was void. The charge was also excepted to, and the jury found for the defendant.

In this Court the cause was argued upon the same exceptions in point of law, which had been urged below, with the addition of the exceptions to evidence rejected and admitted, and those to the charge of the Court.

Fisher and Watts for the plaintiff in error.

Duncan contra.

TILGHMAN C. J.

The record in this case contains five exceptions to the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county. The four first are upon points of evidence, the last to the charge of the Court.

1. The first exception was to the rejection of Jacob Kendig, a witness produced by the plaintiff. Before he...