Pusic v. Salak

Citations

• 261 Pa. 512
• 104 A. 751
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 779

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Deeds—Fraud — Cancellation — Illiterate foreigner — Misrepresentation as'to property conveyed — Absence of consideration — Evidence—A chnowledgment of deed — Presumption — Rebuttal — Findings of fact — Appeal.</p> <p>1. Fraud is never presumed and must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence, either direct or circumstantial, or a combination of both. The witnesses must be credible and the facts distinctly remembered and accurately stated.</p> <p>2. Want of consideration for a conveyance does not prove fraud, but it is a circumstance to be considered upon that question in connection with other evidence, as is also glaring improvidence.</p> <p>3. Although a grantor is presumed to know the contents of a deed executed by him, even when written in a language which he is unable to read or understand, such circumstance may be considered as lending probability to evidence of actual fraud and deception.</p> <p>4. A certificate of acknowledgment to a deed is prima facie evidence of the due execution of the deed, including knowledge of its contents, but is subject to rebuttal where fraud is alleged, especially where there are no intervening rights.</p> <p>5. Parol evidence is competent to show fraud in the execution or acknowledgment of a deed.</p> <p>6. Where an ignorant man is induced, by fraud and deception, to execute a deed which he is unable to read, under the representation, assurance and belief that it is an entirely different paper, equity has jurisdiction to decree the cancellation of the deed and restoration of the property.</p> <p>7. In proceedings in equity for the cancellation of a deed, the question whether the evidence is true is one of fact, and, if true, the question whether it is sufficient is one of law.</p> <p>8. The findings of fact in equity on sufficient evidence will not be disturbed except for manifest error.</p> <p>9. On the hearing of a bill in equity to secure the cancellation of an alleged fraudulent deed it appeared that com