O'Neil v. Soles

Citations

• 2 Monag. 246
• 16 A. 89
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 828

Syllabus

<p>In an action of ejectment, it appeared that, in 1851, a deed for the land in dispute was made to O’Neil, husband of the defendant. In 1867, O’Neil mortgaged the land. Subsequently the mortgage was foreclosed and the land was sold to one Brown, who then conveyed a portion of it to the defendant. The remainder, by various conveyances, vested in the plaintiff. O’Neil and his wife remained continuously in possession. Atthe trial, the testimony of O’Neil was offered in evidence to prove that the deed of 1851 was made to him by a mistake of the scrivener ; that it should have been made to his wife, who furnished the purchase money ; that he executed the mortgage without his wife’s knowledge or consent; that, prior to the purchase of the mortgage by Brown, he called upon Brown and informed him of the defendant’s ownership of the land, and that Brown agreed that, if he would permit the property to be sold at sheriff’s sale, he Brown, would buy it in and execute to the defendant a deed for the whole tract, O’Neil to pay all of his creditors; that Brown subsequently conveyed a portion of it to the defendant, but failed to convey the residue ; that the plaintiff and his grantors knew of defendant’s ownership of the land before they bought it, and knew of the agreement made by O’Neil. The offer was rejected. Held, not to be error.</p> <p>A subsequent offer to establish a trust ex maleficio, by proof that the defendant knew that his grantor held the title as trustee for Brown, was properly excluded.</p> <p>It seems, that, under the statute of frauds, a contract, such as that attempted to be set up in the above case, is void.</p>