Devall v. Glover

Citations

• 250 Pa. 417
• 95 A. 561
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 963

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment — Deeds—Unrecorded deed — Deeds without consideration — Presumption of date of delivery — Rebutting presumption— Charge — Failure to ash instructions.</p> <p>1. The recording of a deed to real property, made without consideration, is ineffective to secure title as against a prior, unrecorded deed under the provisions of the Act of May 19, 1893, P. L. 108, which provides that unrecorded deeds shall be void as to subsequent purchasers for a valid consideration.</p> <p>2. A deed produced by a grantee is presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary to have been delivered on the day on which it bears date.</p> <p>3. In an action of ejectment plaintiff produced in evidence an unrecorded deed bearing date prior to the deed to the defendant, which deed to the defendant, though recorded, was without consideration. Certain testimony was introduced showing circuíastances tending to prove that the deed was not delivered at the time of its date, and the court submitted the circumstances to the jury to be considered by them in determining whether or not the deed to the plaintiff had in fact been delivered at the time he claimed it was. The trial judge charged “The fact that he (plaintiff) had possession of the deed is presumptive evidence that it was delivered to him; but, as to when it was delivered to him there is no evidence in this case.” At the close of the charge, the court inquired of counsel for plaintiff if there was “any portion of the case you desire me to call attention of the jury to; or if there are any omissions I desire to have you suggest them now,” to which counsel for plaintiff replied, “I think there is nothing.” The jury found a verdict for the defendant. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, it was held that though the court should have charged not only that possession was presumptive evidence of the delivery of the deed, but also that there was a presumption that the delivery took place on the day of its date, yet the plaintiff was clearly at fault