Greenwich Coal & Coke Co. v. Learn

Citations

• 234 Pa. 180
• 83 A. 74
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 630

Syllabus

<p>Gift — Goal lands — Title—Parol gift — Statute of Frauds — Exclusive possession — Adverse possession — Improvements—Receipt of produce — Payment of taxes — Statute of Limitations — Declarations of occupant — Evidence—Charge—Appeals.</p> <p>1. In an action under the Act of June 10, 1893, P. L. 415, on an issue to determine the title to coal under a certain piece of land, in which plaintiff claims under a deed from defendant’s father and defendant claims under a prior parol gift from his father followed by possession and valuable improvements made, a verdict for the defendant will be sustained where the evidence produced by him is full, complete, satisfactory and clear; and upon a favorable view the Jury could have definitely found the boundaries and the quantity of land claimed; that the parties to the gift had been brought face to face; that the gift had been made in express, direct, positive and unambiguous language, that it had been repeatedly acknowledged by the donor, and as often asserted by the donee; that, in pursuance of the gift, the latter had gone upon the property and made valuable improvements, the cost of which he had defrayed out of his own and his wife’s money, with the knowledge and approval of the donor; that the change from father to son was notorious, and the defendant had maintained open, adverse and exclusive possession of the property continuously for more than twenty-one years; and that it was understood and agreed between the father and the son that the delivery of certain grain grown on the land by the son to the father during his life was in payment for work done by the father in clearing the land.</p> <p>2. When, in such a case, it appears that at the time of the gift to the defendant there had not been any severance of the title to the coal, the actual possession of the surface carried with it the actual possession downward perpendicularly through the various strata.</p> <p>3. A verdict for defendant in such a case will not be reverse