Barbour v. Wiehle

Citations

• 116 Pa. 308
• 19 W.N.C. 469
• 9 A. 520
• 1887 Pa. LEXIS 393

Syllabus

<p>1. Browning acquired a mortgage on June 16, 1870. On January 1, 1874, Wilde owning the mortgaged premises conveyed a part thereof to Barbour. On June 13, 1874, Browning executed to Wilde a deed of release of the mortgage from the parcel conveyed to Barbour, which release Wilde delivered to Barbour, who failed to record it. On July 8, 1878, Psotta acquired the mortgage and subsequently died and then her executors, having purchased the mortgaged premises at a sheriff’s sale by levari facias from a judgment upon the mortgage, brought ejectment against Barbour, Held:</p> <p>That Wilde, called for the defendant, was within the proviso of the act of April 15, 1869, and incompetent to testify to any matter occurring in the lifetime of Psotta: Warren v. Steer, 112 Penn. St. 634, distinguished.</p> <p>2. An offer to prove knowledge of an agent or attorney as affecting the principal with constructive notice, is inadmissible unless it propose to show that the information was gained by the agent or attorney while engaged for the principal in the matter to which it relates.</p>