Bash v. Bash
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from tke Common Pleas of Westmoreland. The plaintiff in this action declared specially on a contract with his father, the defendant’s intestate, whereby he agreed, in 1823, that if the plaintiff would continue to live with him, work on his farm, make improvements, &c., he would leave plaintiff the farm, stock, grain, &c. The common counts were added.
Read the full summary
In error from tke Common Pleas of Westmoreland. The plaintiff in this action declared specially on a contract with his father, the defendant’s intestate, whereby he agreed, in 1823, that if the plaintiff would continue to live with him, work on his farm, make improvements, &c., he would leave plaintiff the farm, stock, grain, &c. The common counts were added. The main questions were, whether the evidence was such "as authorized the charge of the court on the subject of the contract; and whether the charge was correct as to the nature of the evidence required to prove the contract. A witness…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
A majority of us concur that there is error in the instruction on the defendant’s second and seventh points. It is settled by the decisions quoted, that a contract for testamentary compensation of work done for a father by a son after his majority, can be proved only by direct and positive evidence of it; yet for “direct and positive,” the judge substituted in his charge, “ clear and satisfactory,” and thus put such a contract, as to proof of it, on the footing of a contract between strangers unaffected by any personal relation. The course of this court has been to hold a tight rein over it…
2Cited by13 opinions
- In Re Estate of SyversonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1948
- Klumpert v. VrielandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Breniman v. BrenimanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- In Re Estate of NugenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1937
- Stephens v. BarnesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.