Behm v. Molly

Citations

• 133 Pa. 614
• 19 A. 562
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 940

Syllabus

<p>(a) Plaintiffs in ejectment for parcels Nos. 1, 2, 3 of real estate, claimed title to all as tKe heirs at law of the sheriff’s vendee on execution sales thereof. Defendant claimed the parcels under a resulting trust arising out of her furnishing the purchase money by which the sheriff’s titles thereto were obtained by the plaintiffs’ intestate.</p> <p>(6) The defendant relied, also, upon a deed executed to her by all the plaintiffs after the death of their intestate, two of the grantors, however, being- at the time of its execution minor children, who on attaining their majority refused to ratify the conveyance, and they with their husbands, after their majority were parties plaintiff with the other heirs at law:</p> <p>1. In such case, the rights of said two plaintiffs, late minors, were unaffected by the deed put in evidence by the defendant, and upon the testimony relating to the question of the resulting trust, the trial court properly submitted the cause to the jury as to parcel No. 1, and properly directed a verdict for the minor plaintiffs as to parcels Nos. 2 and 8.</p> <p>2. A letter written by the plaintiffs’ intestate when the parcel No. 1 was advertised at sheriff’s sale, though not shown to be addressed to defendant, but giving permission for the use of his name in the purchase of the property, was relevant and admissible, in connection with evidence of subsequent declarations made by the writer tending to establish his relation as trustee.</p> <p>3. And it was not error to refuse an offer by the plaintiffs to prove by one of them that the deed executed by her, more than five years before the action was instituted, was without consideration, and made entirely upon the representation of the defendant as to matters in controversy concerning which the witness then had no knowledge.</p>