Stonecipher v. Keane

Citations

• 268 Pa. 540
• 112 A. 233
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 733

Syllabus

<p>Landlord and tenant — Visible possession by tenant — Constructive notice — Vendor and vendee.</p> <p>1. The actual visible possession of a tenant is constructive no* tice both of his interest and that of the landlord.</p> <p>2. A prospective purchaser of land is required to make inquiry of those in possession thereof and, failing to do so, is' affected with constructive notice of all that such inquiry would have disclosed.</p> <p>Vendor and vendee — Secret equity — After-acquired knowledge.</p> <p>8. One who obtains a good title to land, without knowledge of a secret equity, may convey it to any purchaser, without reference to what the latter knows.</p> <p>Res judicata — Forties—Attorney—Witness—Judgment — Mortgage.</p> <p>4. To be concluded by a judgment, one must be a party to the suit or what is equivalent thereto, with a right to control the proceedings and take an appeal. The fact that a person appeared for an actual party in the suit as attorney or witness, will not conclude him.</p> <p>5. A mortgagee is not concluded by a recovery against the mortgagor, in an action of ejectment brought by a third party after the recording of the mortgage.</p> <p>Ejectment — Evidence—Articles of agreement — Seal—Consideration — Payment—Pleadings—Witness—Party dead — Act of May ¡23, 1887, P. L. 158.</p> <p>6. In an action of ejectment, where defendant claims title under unrecorded articles of agreement under seal, showing him to be a purchaser for value, and establishes possession by a tenant, and the plaintiff claims under a deed subsequently executed by the same vendor, the agreement being under seal, imports a consideration, and it is immaterial whether or not such consideration has been paid in full; and evidence on the subject is unnecessary and inadmissible, if the question of payment has not been raised by the pleadings.</p> <p>In such case, where plaintiff had succeeded to the title of the grantee of the original vendor, defendant is incompetent as a witness to prov