Park v. Park
Citations
- 39 Pa. Super. 212
- 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 465
Syllabus
<p>Contract — Parent and child — Parol contract as to land — Statute of frauds —Evidence.</p> <p>1. In an action of ejectment for a certain timber tract of thirty-two acres, it appeared that the plaintiff claimed the tract under a parol contract with his deceased father, and that the defendant, a brother of the plaintiff, claimed the tract by a deed from the father, subsequent in date to the parol contract. The plaintiff produced a number of witnesses, most of whom as members of the family, were adverse to his right, and these witnesses testified that the plaintiff about the time he graduated from a commercial college, had an offer of a position at a good salary, and that he wished to take it, but that at his father’s request, he gave it up, and went to live with his parents at his father’s farm under an agreement by which he was to have the farm and the timber tract in question as his own property, and that he was to support his father and mother during their lives. There was also proof that the plaintiff went upon the farm, took absolute control of it, including the timber tract, made valuable improvements upon the premises, including a number of new constructions, and that he had paid the taxes which, after he had taken possession, were assessed in his name. It was also shown that the father had made numerous declarations relating to the parol contract, and to the effect that his son owned the land; and there was proof that he had made a will by which he had devised all the land situate in the township in which the farm and timber tract was situated, to plaintiff. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff.</p> <p>2. In such a case evidence as to the declarations of the father made in the absence of plaintiff fifteen years after the testimony established that a parol agreement had been made and executed by the entry of the plaintiff into possession of the land, and a like period after the father had executed
Judges: Beaver, Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- McGinley's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1917-04-16· cited 36×
- Liggins EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1958-06-30· cited 29×
- Swenk EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1954-11-09· cited 11×
- Hitchcock EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1956-06-25· cited 9×
- Rule v. RuleLuzerne County Court of Common Pleas· 1956-02-09
- Haines EstateMifflin County Court of Common Pleas· 1972-08-18
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Wilson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1898-07-21· cited 31×
- Shroyer v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1903-01-05· cited 27×
- Brinker v. BrinkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1847-10-18· cited 23×
- Smith v. TuitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1889-06-28· cited 22×
- Parry v. ParrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1889-11-04· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.