Tarr v. Robinson

Citations

• 158 Pa. 60
• 27 A. 859
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1541

Syllabus

<p>Gift — Acceptance—Implied benefit — Burden of proof.</p> <p>Upon the ground of implied benefit, the assent to a gift by a donee will be presumed; and the title will vest eo instanti the gift is made, even though he bo ignorant of the transaction, and will continue in him until he rejects it. The burden of proof in such a case is on those who allege refusal to accept.</p> <p>Ejectment — Sheriff's sale— Title — Inquiry— Gift.</p> <p>In an action of ejectment, it appeared that the land in question had been devised to testator’s son upon his paying to the estate a certain amount per acre. There was evidence that the son refused to accept the devise. By the will the executors were directed to retain possession of the testator’s real estate until all of his debts were paid out of the income. While the executors were still in possession, the land was sold under a judgment against the son to whom it had been devised. Held, that it was the duty of the purchasers to have made inquiry as to the condition of the title, and if such inquiry would have led to knowledge of the refusal by the devisee to accept the devise they would have been concluded.</p> <p>Evidence — Competency of witness — Interest—Act of 1887.</p> <p>In the above case defendants claimed title under the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, who was dead at the time suit was brought. The son to whom the land had been devised was a party plaintiff, but at the trial he disclaimed, and suffered a nonsuit. Held, (1) that the son was a competent witness, to prove that he had never accepted the devise; (2) that loose declarations of the devisee, made in the absence of the parties interested, claiming ownership of the land, were not competent evidence to prejudice the rights of plaintiffs; (3) that one of the defendants called to testify to the declarations of the devisee was incompetent, certain of the residuary devisees of the testator being dead at the time of the trial.</p>