Estate of Smith

Citations

• 177 Pa. 437
• 35 A. 680
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1002

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Presumption of payment — Specific performance — Deed.</p> <p>In 1841, C. and R. by articles of agreement sold land and delivered possession to certain parties, and by mesne sales the equitable title became vested in J. In 1865 J. by articles of agreement sold the land to A. The latter paid a part of the purchase money. After the death of A. his administrator obtained an order of the orphans’ court directing the heirs of C. and R. to make a deed to him upon payment to them of the balance of .the purchase money, the amount of which was duly ascertained and determined in those proceedings. The representative of A. claimed that this balance should be deducted from the balance of purchase money due J. under the articles of 1865. J. denied the right to make such deduction upon the ground that the balance alleged to be due to the heirs of C. and R. must be presumed from lapse of time to have been paid. Held, (1) that the decree of the orphans’ court, the finding of the auditor, and the testimony in the proceedings for specific performance were prima facie sufficient to rebut the presumption relied on; (2) that the fact that J. was not a party to, or notified of, the proceeding for specific performance was unimportant in view of his failure to allege actual payment of the purchase money by the parties primarily liable for it.</p>