Sahm v. Long

Citations

• 51 Pa. Super. 428
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 238

Syllabus

<p>Landlord, and tenant — Oral lease — Statute of frauds — Act of March 21, 1772, 1 Sm. L. 889.</p> <p>1. An oral lease for the term of one year only and to expire within less than two years from the time of the agreement, is not invalidated by the statute of frauds of March 21, 1772, 1 Sm. L. 389, which requires all leases to be in writing, but expressly excepts from its provisions “all leases not exceeding the term of three years from the making thereof.”</p> <p>2. An oral agreement made by a lessor to indemnify his lessee against loss from being dispossessed by any adverse claim of title, is not an agreement to answer for the debt or default of another within the meaning of the Act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 308, and need not be in writing.</p> <p>3. In an action by a lessee, who has been evicted, against his lessor to recover upon a covenant by which the lessor agreed to indemnify the lessee from loss by eviction under a paramount title, the question as to whether the lessee entered into the agreement for the purpose of aiding the lessor to hold the land against the real owner is a question for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff sustains the validity and legality of the contract between the lessor and lessee.</p> <p>Evidence — Receipt—Receipt in full — Alteration of vrriting — Question for jury.</p> <p>4. Where a receipt shows on its face the words “Rec. in full,” and the person signing it testifies that the words were not on the paper when he signed it, and the person receiving it testifies that they were on the paper at the time, and it appears that the receipt was in the hands of the debtor continuously after it was signed, the question as to whether the payment shown by the receipt was in full is a question, under the conflicting evidence, for the jury.</p>