Robbins v. Locust Mountain Savings & Loan Ass'n

Citations

• 37 Pa. Super. 49
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 237

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment — Deed—Alteration of deed — Record—Notice—Conditional verdict.</p> <p>In an action of ejectment it appeared that the common source of title was one Jay who some years before the institution of the suit agreed orally to convey the premises in .dispute to one Devins. Jay executed a deed to Devins and delivered it to his own attorney with instructions to deliver the deed to Devins, when the purchase money, $700, should be paid. Devins entered into possession, but paid nothing. He contracted with one Pace to build a house thereon. Robbins, the plaintiff, furnished material for the house amounting to about $200. His attorney advised him that the best way to secure his claim would be to obtain title from Jay. Robbins subsequently arranged with one Yost to act for him as middleman to secure the deed from the attorney of Jay. Without either Jay’s knowledge or Robbins’s knowledge, the deed was altered by substituting Yost’s name for that of Devins. Yost then took the deed and paid for Robbins $700 to Jay’s attorney, and Jay thereafter received the money. Upon the delivery of the deed Yost placed it on record, and thereafter made a deed to Robbins which was also recorded. In the meantime Pace filed a mechanic’s lien naming Devins and Yost as owners, and took judgment for the amount of his claim. Robbins attempted to have this judgment opened and petitioned that he might be permitted to intervene as a party defendant. The court refused to allow this on the ground that the deed under which he claimed was a forgery. The land was then sold, and the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale after receiving a deed from the sheriff executed a bond and mortgage to the defendant. The defendant entered judgment on the bond accompanying the mortgage and became the purchaser of the premises. Subsequently Robbins received from Jay a quitclaim deed, reciting the circumstances, and then brought this ejectment. Held, that under all the circumstances of the case the court committed no erro