Benedick v. Benedick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 476, Jan. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. York Co., April T., 1897, No. 81, on verdict for plaintiff. Ejectment. Before W. E. Bay Stewart, J. At tbe trial it appeared that on or about April 1,1881, Sarah Witmyer, tbe owner of .the land in dispute, with Daniel Witmyer, her husband, called at the office of William P. Williams, Esq., a justice of the peace, and instructed him to prepare a deed from them to Philip Benedick.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 476, Jan. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. York Co., April T., 1897, No. 81, on verdict for plaintiff. Ejectment. Before W. E. Bay Stewart, J. At tbe trial it appeared that on or about April 1,1881, Sarah Witmyer, tbe owner of .the land in dispute, with Daniel Witmyer, her husband, called at the office of William P. Williams, Esq., a justice of the peace, and instructed him to prepare a deed from them to Philip Benedick. The justice prepared the deed, and it was duly executed and acknowledged by them, who instructed him to keep it. Subsequently Mrs. Witmyer demanded…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterbett,
The controlling question in this case is whether there is any evidence of the delivery of the deed in question that ought to have been submitted to the jury. If there was not, it follows that the learned trial judge erred, and the judgment must be reversed.
The deed having been lost, the plaintiff, for the purpose of proving its execution, contents, delivery, etc., called the scrivener who had prepared it about sixteen years before. The witness was old, infirm and of somewhat impaired memory. He *354testified as to the preparation of the deed and its execution…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Galbraith v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Appeal of DuraindSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kanawell v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918