McGill v. Jordan
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
Motion for judgment non obstante vere-dicto. Ejectment. On the trial it appeared that the land in controversy was part of a larger tract known as the “Mount Holly Iron Works Estate," which the Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Bank in 1846 conveyed to Kropff, who was the plaintiff's grantor, and Geisse for 821,000; that Kropff and Geisse executed a purchase-money mortgage of the said estate to their vendor; that in 184S Kropff obtained a warrant from the land office for the part in…
Read the full summary
Motion for judgment non obstante vere-dicto. Ejectment. On the trial it appeared that the land in controversy was part of a larger tract known as the “Mount Holly Iron Works Estate," which the Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Bank in 1846 conveyed to Kropff, who was the plaintiff's grantor, and Geisse for 821,000; that Kropff and Geisse executed a purchase-money mortgage of the said estate to their vendor; that in 184S Kropff obtained a warrant from the land office for the part in dispute in the present case, as land “unimproved and unclaimed by any other person;” subsequently, on October 28, 1848,…
1Opinion of the Court
BUTLER, District Judge.
The execution of the mortgage and the deed to Geisse are the acts relied upon to invoke the doctrine of estoppel. In Pennsylvania it is well settled that where one undertakes by deed to convey an indefeasible estate in fee-simple, he shall not thereafter be allowed to set up a subsequently acquired interest against his vendee or those claiming under him. The reason upon which thisrulerests is obvious. Having induced the vendee to part with his money upon the assurance imported by his act, the vendor should not thereafter be allowed to deny its truth, but should be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brown v. M'CormickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Roland v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Lighty v. ShorbSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832