Randal v. Gould

Citations

• 225 Pa. 42
• 73 A. 986
• 1909 Pa. LEXIS 599

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Proof as to insurance — Effect on jury — Notice.</p> <p>1. A party sued for damages may not be put to the hazard of a loss because a jury believes him to be protected by insurance, and reference to such insurance is improper; but proof of a radical point, such as notice of a defective title, should not be excluded because it involves the showing collaterally of the minor and irrelevant point of title insurance.</p> <p>2. On the trial of an action of ejectment a motion was made to withdraw a juror upon an offer of proof made by the plaintiff that the defendant had not only bought with notice of the fraud in his title, but had paid an extra premium to a title insurance company for indemnification against it. The jury was taken out and argument was had on the motion. The motion was overruled, and the offer was withdrawn. The jury was then brought in. Held, that the trial court committed no error in refusing to withdraw the juror.</p> <p>Practice — Trial—Charge.</p> <p>3. A trial judge cannot be convicted of error in controverting in his charge a manifestly fallacious argument of counsel.</p> <p>Ejectment — Notice—Fraudulent title.</p> <p>4. Defendant in ejectment is charged with notice of the fraudulent nature of his grantor’s title, where it appears that he had participated, prior to his taking title, in legal proceedings in which the question of the fraudulent character of the title was raised.</p> <p>Mortgage — Mortgage bond — Married woman — Invalidity of mortgage.</p> <p>5. A bond executed by a married woman may be valid, although a mortgage accompanying it as collateral, is void for nonjoinder by the husband.</p> <p>Judgment — Collateral attack — Efectment.</p> <p>6. Where the plaintiff in an ejectment claims title under a sheriff’s deed, and it appears that the judgment on which the execution issued which resulted in the deed was unappealed from, the defendant in the ejectment cannot in that proceeding attack the validity of the judgment.</p> <p>Ex