Shroyer v. Smith

Citations

• 204 Pa. 310
• 54 A. 24
• 1903 Pa. LEXIS 796

Syllabus

<p>.Statute of frauds—Memorandum in writing—Will—Parol contract— Evidence—Party deed— Witness—Ejectment.</p> <p>In an action of ejectment it appeared that the plaintiff claimed title by a deed from his father, and the defendant, a nephew of the plaintiff, claimed title under a parol contract made with his grandfather, plaintiff’s grantor, long before the date of the deed to plaintiff. Defendant’s mother testified that defendant had learned the trade of blacksmithing, and that shortly after he came of age his grandfather, in the presence of the witness, orally agreed that if defendant would give up his trade, and would come and live with him and work for him, that he would leave him by will the farm in controversy. Other witnesses testified to declarations of the grandfather confirming such a parol contract. There was also offered in evidence a paper signed by the grandfather which purported to be a will, by which he left the land in question to defendant. Defendant was permitted to testify in his own behalf although the plaintiff had not called any witness to testify to any matter which had occurred before the death of the grandfather. Held (1) that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict for defendant; (2) that the will was a sufficient memorandum in writing, within the meaning of the statute of frauds; (3) that the defendant was an incompetent witness.</p>