Swartz v. Swartz
| Decision Date | 11 January 1846 |
| Citation | 4 Pa. 353 |
| Parties | SWARTZ <I>v.</I> SWARTZ. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Chapman, for plaintiff in error.—The evidence excluded was material in the issue trying, which was, whether the plaintiff had become a purchaser by improvements under a parol contract. The court were wrong in their charge as to the right of the plaintiff. It must be shown, that the improvements were made after the parol contract. Wack v. Sorber, 2 Whart. 387; Eckert v. Eckert, 3 Penna. Rep. 332. There was no contract after 1834, and the subsequent erection of the mill was not in pursuance of the original contract. Pugh v. Good, 3 Watts & Serg. 56. Nor were the terms of the contract so certain as the law requires. Woods v. Farmare, 10 Watts, 195; Jones v. Peterman, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 543. The improvements were compensated by the profits, and in such case, they are not a consideration. McKee v. Phillips, 9 Watts, 85.
Ross, contrà.—The jury could not be permitted to infer from the price, that we were not purchasers. Hoover v. Gonzalus, 11 Serg. & Rawle, 314. The character of the building at the trial, twelve years after its erection, was not evidence to contradict the proof of expenditure at that time. The testimony of Weisel showed a positive agreement for a union of the separate interests into a joint concern; possession taken and expenditures made on the faith of the contract, so that every requisite of Pugh v. Good is satisfied. The occupation for thirty years under the contract was a sufficient designation of the extent of our right. The outstanding life-estate is perfectly immaterial. Thomas was estopped by his previous acts when his remainder vested. Brown v. McCormick, 6 Watts, 60. The charge was perfectly correct as to the effect of the acts of the parties in 1834, for, either permission to expend under the supposition of title, or an encouragement to expend without title, estops the party. Carr v. Wallace, 7 Watts, 394, and cases cited by the court.
Jan. 11. GIBSON, C. J.
These exceptions to evidence are so nice, that it is unnecessary to say more in regard to them, than that they are not sustained. Neither is it necessary to examine, in detail, exceptions to dislocated parts of the charge. It would not be more troublesome than unprofitable to follow out to their results these mincing assignments of error, which, catching at particular expressions, lead to no sound conclusion as to the accuracy of the whole. The proper inquiry is, whether the ruling principle of the cause has been correctly stated and applied to the evidence. To determine whether it has been so stated and applied in this instance, it is necessary to recur to the features of the case. The original parties to the agreement which is the subject of adjudication, were proprietors of contiguous pieces of land, through which runs a stream of water with just fall enough in its course through both, to afford sufficient power for a saw-mill. The proprietors of these two pieces agreed to erect, in partnership, such a mill on the lower one; the one party finding the scite, the other the water-power, and both contributing equally to the expense. The mill was erected on these terms, and worked for some time on joint account; but the plaintiff below, who purchased the land owned by the proprietor of the water-power, has been held out of a participation in the business and profits, by the proprietor of the scite; and it has been urged on his part, that as the predecessor of the plaintiff below was in possession under a previous arrangement, which had expired by its own limitation, this new parol agreement is void by the statute of frauds.
One fallacy of the argument, is the assumption of a right to treat the agreement as a parol conveyance of an interest or estate in the land, instead of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chew v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilmington, Del., Inc.
...is at an end. But, till then, it constitutes a right for the violation of which redress may be had by action.' So, in Swartz v. Swartz, 4 Pa. 353, 45 Am.Dec. 697, same judge, in referring to Rerick v. Kern, said: 'The principle of the case is, that the revocation would be a fraud; and that ......
-
Penman v. Jones
...surface support: Johnson v. Webster, 4 De G. Mac. N. & G. 474; Stearns v. Richmond, 88 Va. 992; Hill v. West, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 142; Swartz v. Swartz, 4 Pa. 353; Grubb v. Grubb et al., 74 Pa. 25; Ott Kreiter, 110 Pa. 370; Wright v. Wright, 1 Vesey Sr. 409; Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. 475; Scran......
-
Cole v. Ellwood Power Company
... ... Miller, 8 Pa. 272; Huff v. McCauley, 53 Pa ... 206; LeFevre v. LeFevre, 4 S. & R. 241; Rerick ... v. Kern, 14 S. & R. 267; Swartz v. Swartz, 4 Pa. 353 ... If, ... then, the Pittsburg company could not deprive the licensee of ... the benefit of his expenditure, ... ...
-
City of St. Paul v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
...31 A. 808; City of New Orleans v. Great Southern T. & Tel. Co., supra; Le Fevre v. Le Fevre, 4 S. & R. 241; Rerick v. Kern, supra; Swartz v. Swartz, 4 Pa. 353; Cumberland V. Co. v. McLanahan, 59 Pa. 23; Pierce v. Cleland, supra; Ricker v. Kelly, 1 Me. 117; Clark v. Glidden, supra; Western U......