Gorgas v. Hertz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 72, July T., 1891, by defendant, D. Rhine Hertz, from judgment of G. P. Lancaster Go., Aug. T., 1890, No. 8, on verdict for plaintiff, Jacob Gorgas, admr. of Elizabeth Muckle, deceased. Assumpsit for unpaid purchase money charged on land.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 72, July T., 1891, by defendant, D. Rhine Hertz, from judgment of G. P. Lancaster Go., Aug. T., 1890, No. 8, on verdict for plaintiff, Jacob Gorgas, admr. of Elizabeth Muckle, deceased. Assumpsit for unpaid purchase money charged on land. On the trial, before Patterson, J., there was evidence to the effect that about April 1, 1868, Elizabeth Muckle sold to Elizabeth Norton a house and lot for $900, of which $450 was to remain charged on the land during the grantor’s life. In 1879 the property was sold by the sheriff and was bought by the defendant. Notice of the lien was given at…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The first and second specifications allege that the court below erred in permitting the witnesses named therein to prove the contents of the deed, alleged to have been lost. It was held in Diehl v. Emig, 65 Pa. 820, that the contents of a deed, lost, destroyed or suppressed, may be established by parol evidence in ejectment, when its existence has first been proved. There was sufficient evidence of the existence of this deed to justify proof of its contents by parol. The sufficiency of the search for a lost deed is generally left to the discretion of the trial judge. When it…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Ray's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Hupfer v. National Distilling Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Brenner v. LesherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Greggerson's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Muncey v. Pullman Taxi Service Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.