VanHorn v. Munnell

Citations

• 145 Pa. 497
• 22 A. 985
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 687

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action to enforce specific performance of a written contract that is lost, the proof of its terms by oral testimony stands upon the same basis as if it were a parol contract. In such case, the precise terms of the whole agreement must be proved by the most clear and indisputable evidence: Sage v. McGuire, 4 W. & S. 228; McFarson’s App., 11 Pa. 508.</p> <p>(a) In ejectment to enforce an alleged written contract between the plaintiff and his deceased father, under which plaintiff, on doing certain things during his father’s lifetime, was to get the latter’s farm at his death, the scrivener of the agreement, called to show its loss and prove its terms, did not undertake to recall the whole of it, but only what he considered the principal points:</p> <p>2. Under the settled rules of evidence, this proof, by reason of its failure-to show the whole of the contract, was insufficient. For this reason, and because the testimony, in so far as it did exhibit the terms of the agreement, fell short i)f the requirement that they must be shown with precision, it was the duty of the court to affirm a point requesting an instruction to find for the defendant.</p>