White v. Black

• Decision Date: 26 July 1900
• Docket Number: 43-1899
• Citation: White v. Black, 14 Pa.Super. 459 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1900)
• Parties: White v. Black
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

14 Pa.Super. 459

White v. Black

No. 43-1899

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 26, 1900

Argued December 14, 1899 [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter]

Appeal by defendant, in suit of Jane White against Augustus Black, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co.-1893, No. 271, on verdict for plaintiff.

Assumpsit. Before Beitler, J.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

At the trial the court permitted plaintiff to testify against defendant's objection as follows:

[Mr. White:"

Q. You got your rentals from them -- did you lease them to one William Black?"

Mr. Shields: I object.

" A. Yes, sir, I did."

Mr. Shields: I object. We have nothing to do with the lease to William Black; the defendant here is Augustus Black.

Mr. White: I offer to prove that the defendant assumed William Black's lease.

Judge Beitler:

With that offer I will overrule the objection.

Exception for defendant.]

[Mr. White I offer in evidence the lease from Jane White to William Black for the store and dwelling, 2700 East Cumberland street, in the city of Philadelphia, for the term of one year from the 1st day of June, 1889, at the rent of $ 360 per annum, to be paid in equal monthly payments of $ 30.00, and providing, inter alia, that the lessee agrees to pay all extra water rents.

Mr. Shields: I object. The lease has not been admitted.

Judge Beitler:

Mr. Shields has a right to cross-examine on this lease.

Mr Shields: I do not care to cross-examine on it.

Mr. White: I offer the lease in evidence.

Mr. Shields: I object.

Objection overruled. Exception for defendant.]

[Mr. White:"

Q. Did William Black go in possession under that lease?"

Mr. Shields: I object.

Objection overruled. Exception for defendant.

" A. Yes, sir." ]

[The court permitted plaintiff to offer in evidence, against defendant's objection, the notice to quit given by the plaintiff to the defendant, as administrator of William Black.]

[The court admitted, against defendant's objection, the plaintiff's offer to prove that the written lease to Augustus Black was not intended by her to operate as such, as follows:

Mr. White: I propose to prove by this witness that the lease which has been produced here by Augustus Black, and which he states was a lease in writing which he went into possession under, was, as a matter of fact, delivered to him in the middle of the term after he had been in; that it was brought to Mrs. White by Augustus Black and her son Charles, and that Augustus Black stated at that time that he had a discussion going on in court between his sister, who remained there since William Black's time, and himself, and that he wanted to get her out of the house, and that it was necessary to have this in writing so as to produce it at the trial to show that he was the tenant of this lady; that he didn't go into possession under it, but that it was given to him simply for the purpose of showing his title, and not as the lease between the parties.

Mr. Shields: I object.

Objection overruled. Exception for defendant.]

[The court admitted, against defendant's objection, plaintiff's offer to prove that the written lease to Augustus Black was not intended as a lease, as follows:

Mr. White: I propose to prove by this witness that the lease which has been produced here by Augustus Black, and which he states was a lease in writing which he went into possession under, was, as a matter of fact, delivered to him in the middle of the term after he had been in; that it was brought to Mrs. White by Augustus Black and her son Charles, and that Augustus Black stated at that time that he had a discussion going on in court between his sister, who remained there since William Black's time, and himself, and that he wanted to get her out of the house, and that it was necessary to have this writing so as to produce it at the trial, to show that he was the tenant of this lady; that he didn't go into possession under it, but that it was given to him simply for the purpose of showing his title, and not as a lease between the parties.

Mr. Shields: I object. Objection overruled. Exception for defendant.]

[The court admitted, against the defendant's objection, the plaintiff's offer to identify the notice given by the plaintiff to the defendant, that she would hold him for the rent of the ensuing year, as follows:

Mr. White: I propose, further, to show by this witness -- I wish to identify the notice which was given to Augustus Black on June 1, 1892 -- that Mrs. White would hold him for the rent if he moved out, not having given her the three months' notice. I wish to do that in order to rebut the evidence introduced by Mr. Shields when he offered the court record, that this lady had, by amending her statement, showed for the first time that she claimed to hold him under the old lease, and to show that even then, before any statement was filed, that this lady notified him that she intended to hold him for lack of the three months' notice.]

The court charged the jury in part as follows:

[The lease which is produced here and which is signed by Augustus Black -- and it is admitted that she gave him that lease -- binds her unless she can show you by clear, precise and satisfactory proof that a fraudulent use is being made of it by Augustus Black.

The law encourages the putting of contracts into writing; encourages it because it prevents disputes and ill feelings between neighbors and business men, and because it results in men knowing just where they stand, if they had their contracts in black and white. The law says that these papers shall have a sanctity given to them; that they shall be considered just as they are written, except in some well-defined cases, and one case is where the party holding the paper attempts to make a fraudulent use of it; and I propose to leave it to you in this case to say whether the party who attempts to escape from the lease, Mrs. White, has satisfied you that Augustus Black is attempting to make a fraudulent use of the paper.] . . . .

[Is there anything in the testimony of these two people that without reasonable doubt leads you to believe that this man is not making a fraudulent use of that paper in producing it before you to show it was the lease under which he was a tenant?] . . . .

[The plaintiff says even if this lease was executed just as Augustus Black says it was, and that it was the lease under which he held possession, he was liable and in possession if he stayed in after the close of the year, and that is true as a matter of law, and the plaintiff says she saw skids and barrels on the pavement; that she saw people moving skids and barrels across the street from her property to the property on the other corner, which, on June 1, 1892, the defendant occupied. My recollection is, and I want you to take yours and not mine, is that she did not mention the fact that they were being taken out of the cellar until the close of her testimony, and then did say that she saw people moving barrels from the pavement of one property to the other property, and she added: " I saw people taking things out of the cellar." If on the 2d or 3d day of June the defendant was in possession of that property he was in for a whole year, whether he gave up the key or not.] . . . .

[Suppose you ignore Augustus Black's testimony; but you cannot do that without you find something in the case to warrant you in doing that.]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 432.63. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned among others were to rulings on evidence, reciting same. To portions of the judge's charge, reciting same. The charge of the court was erroneous and misleading in that it did not fairly and fully present both sides of the case to the jury.

A. S. L. Shields, for appellant. -- On the face of the pleadings, therefore, it appeared that there was but one written lease between the parties (that averred in the affidavit of defense), which consequently could not be impeached or contradicted by parol evidence of the matters alleged in the statement without an allegation of fraud, accident or mistake: Hunter v. McHose, 100 Pa. 38; Wodock v. Robinson, 148 Pa. 503; Wyckoff v. Ferree, 168 Pa. 261.

The learned trial judge erred in admitting in evidence the notice to quit given by the plaintiff to the defendant during his tenancy as administrator of William Black.

The learned trial judge erred in admitting the evidence offered to show that the written lease from the plaintiff to Augustus Black was not intended by her to operate as a lease, because that evidence tended to show fraud neither in the procuring of the lease nor in subsequently adducing it as a lease.

Even if it be admitted that the testimony of the plaintiff and her son was unimpeached and uncontradicted, and therefore to be taken as true, it would fail to show any representations on the part of the defendant on which fraud could be predicated. Finally, there was no allegation by the plaintiff that she would not have executed it if it were not for the representations made, whatever they were, and consequently the evidence given was not admissible, because it did not possess the requisites necessary to authorize the admission of parol evidence to contradict a written instrument. Such evidence is admissible only when there has been fraud, accident or mistake in the creation of the instrument itself, or where there has been an attempt to make a fraudulent use of the instrument in violation of a promise or agreement made at the time the instrument was signed and without which it would not have been executed: Thorne v. Warfflein, 100 Pa. 519; Phillips v. Meily, 106 Pa. 536; Cloud v. Markle, 186 Pa. 614.

As has...