Mitchell v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 32, Jan. T:, 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1902, No. 190, on verdict for defendant in case of Joseph Mitchell v. Frederick E. Mitchell, Polly Mitchell et al. Ejectment for land in the city of Wilkesbarre.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 32, Jan. T:, 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1902, No. 190, on verdict for defendant in case of Joseph Mitchell v. Frederick E. Mitchell, Polly Mitchell et al. Ejectment for land in the city of Wilkesbarre. Before Halsey, J. At the trial it appeared that Frederick E. Mitchell was indebted to his brother, Joseph Mitchell, in the sum of 1100. On September 26, 1900, while the debt was unpaid, Frederick E. Mitchell in consideration of $1.00 and of natural love and affection conveyed the land in dispute to his wife, Polly Mitchell. This conveyance was…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The principle volenti non fit injuria is a good defense to what would otherwise be actual fraud: Zuver v. Clark, 104 Pa. 222, and a fortiori it is good against merely constructive fraud. The jury have found that plaintiff knew and assented to the conveyance by defendant to the latter’s wife. That ended the plaintiff’s case.
An attorney at law who acts for both parties in negotiations or communications in presence of both is a competent witness for either as to such matters: Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. 514.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.'s AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Zuver v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
3Cited by3 opinions
- Doll v. LoeselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Tracy v. TracySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Ritter v. WraySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911