Buchanan v. Hazzard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of •McKean county: Of May Term 1880, No. 50. Ejectment by ITenry E. Hazzard and Mary A. Hazzard, for the use of said Mary, against Russell Buchanan and Jefferson Buchanan, for a tract of land. At the trial, before Williams, P. J., it appeared that the title to the property in dispute was in Mrs. Hazzard, but the defendants claimed under her the right of possession for oil purposes.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of •McKean county: Of May Term 1880, No. 50. Ejectment by ITenry E. Hazzard and Mary A. Hazzard, for the use of said Mary, against Russell Buchanan and Jefferson Buchanan, for a tract of land. At the trial, before Williams, P. J., it appeared that the title to the property in dispute was in Mrs. Hazzard, but the defendants claimed under her the right of possession for oil purposes. The facts upon which this claim was founded were as follows: On the 7 th of June 1877, Mrs. Hazzard executed an oil lease, wherein it was stipulated that in consideration of…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered,
2Per curiam
The learned court below were clearly right in rejecting the evidence offered by the plaintiffs in error and complained of in the first assignment. Nothing is better settled than that a deed by a married woman without joining her husband is absolutely void; and evidence of the husband’s verbal assent could not help the matter : Trimmer v. Heagy, 4 Harris 487. Nor can she be estopped by any subsequent act or ratification: (Hidden v. Strupler, 2 P. F. Smith 400. Nothing but a new deed, duly executed and acknowledged, could avail. The subsequent deed…
3Cited by5 opinions
- BOSSES v. MAHALSKYSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Paul v. KunzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Stivers v. TuckerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Haines TrustSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Holt v. KaaukaiHawaii Supreme Court · 1898