Miller v. Withers

Citations

• 188 Pa. 128
• 41 A. 300
• 1898 Pa. LEXIS 585

Syllabus

<p>Charge on land — Assignment of charge — Asset of estate.</p> <p>Where a conveyance of land reserves a certain sum as a charge on the-land, the interest of which is to be paid to the grantor and his wife during their lives and, after their death, the principal to his estate, the charge is not a voluntary settlement, which is irrevocable, but it is an asset of the-estate, which may be assigned by the grantor during his lifetime.</p> <p>Charge on land — Lunacy—Assignment of charge.</p> <p>An owner of land conveyed it to another, reserving a certain sum as a charge on the land, the interest of which was to be paid to himself and wife during their lives, and the principal after their death to the estate of the grantor. The grantor and his wife in order to raise money assigned the charge without consideration to a grandson, who reassigned it to the person who furnished the money. After the grantor’s death, his administrator brought an action against the owner of the land to recover the amount of the charge. It appeared in this suit that the grantor by an inquisition in lunacy had been found to be a lunatic at the time he assigned the charge. Held, (1) That the question at issue was the capacity of the grantor to contract at the date of his deed for the charge on the land, and the administrator had no such legal title as entitled him to recover independent of the claim of the person who had bought the charge from the-grantor’s grandson; (2) that the owner of the land might have paid the money into court, but could if he chose put the administrator upon proof' of his title in the suit brought to recover the charge; (3) that the grandson was a competent witness since he was only a nominal purchaser and had transferred to another before the suit what, interest he had, if any, in the charge; (4) that the presumption of undue influence arising from the confidential relation between the grantor and his grandson was rebutted by the fact that the grandson was in no way benefite