Appeal of Duraind

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal of Duraind, 116 Pa. 93 (Pa. 1887)
8 A. 922; 1887 Pa. LEXIS 366
Clark, Gordon, Green, Mercur, Paxson, Sterrett, Trunkey

Appeal of Duraind

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

A delivery is essentially necessary to give effect to a deed. The signing and sealing thereof are insufficient to bind the grantor, or to pass title to the vendee therein named. In the present case, no question of presumptive or conditional delivery, either to the vendee or to any person for her, arises.

It is conclusively shown that, although the deed was signed and acknowledged, yet in fact it remained in the possession of the person who signed it until her death. Neither the grantee named, nor the persons for whose benefit it professed to be made, gave any consideration therefor, nor were any of them present when it was signed or acknowledged, and they had no knowledge of its existence during the life of the maker. In law it was not a deed.

Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name
APPEAL OF LOUISA DURAIND, TRUSTEE
Cited By
6 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
A deed, signed and acknowledged but remaining in the possession of the grantor until her death and for which no consideration was given, the grantee neither being present when it was signed and acknowledged nor having knowledge of its existence during the life of the grantor, is insufficient to bind the grantor or to pass title to the grantee, because of the want of delivery essentially necessary to give it effect.