Hess v. Calender

Citations

• 120 Pa. 138
• 13 A. 720
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 466

Syllabus

<p>'l. In an action of ejectment involving an equitable title, it is the duty of the judge acting as a chancellor, which, he truly is, to scrutinize and weigh the evidence for himself; and, if the facts set up are sufficient in character and are clearly and satisfactorily proved, so that he is satisfied upon all the evidence that the case is a proper one for specific execution, he should so instruct the jury and direct their verdict accordingly.</p> <p>2. On the other hand, if he is not so satisfied; if the facts are not sufficient, or the evidence on which they rest is not clear, satisfactory and convincing, so that his conscience is not moved to sustain the alleged contract, he should then so instruct the jury and direct their verdict accordingly: Moore v. Small, 19 Pa. 468, discussed.</p> <p>3. But if the facts alleged are sufficient if satisfactorily established, yet the evidence in relation to them is conflicting, or the credibility of witnesses is involved, and the conflicting testimony is of such a character that he can conscionably sustain a verdict either way, as the jury may find, the ease should go to the jury with careful instructions, to turn upon their finding of the disputed facts.</p> <p>4. A parol contract for the sale of lands is void at law; and, when an appeal is made to a chancellor, whether sitting on the equity or the law side of the court, to enforce such contract, its equity must be apparent, involved in no doubt and wanting in no requisite necessary to move the conscience.</p>