Ball v. Davidson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 25, 1889

Ball v. Davidson, 1 Monag. 563 (Pa. 1889)

17 A. 221; 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1334

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The court below committed no error in directing the jury to find for the defendant. The statute of limitations had been pleaded, and was. a bar to the plaintiff’s recovery. More than six years had elapsed between the time when the cause of action accrued and the bringing of the suit. There was nothing to toll the statute. There was an attempt to set up a trust, but it failed. The testimony was vague, both as to the existence of a trust and the nature of it. No chancellor would decree a trust upon such evidence. This view renders a discussion of the other points unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Ball, Exr. v. Davidson, Admr.
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Douglass Davidson and Nathaniel Davidson compromised an ejectment suit by selling the land to Barber, who gave á judgment to Nathaniel for a part of the purchase money and a judgment note to Douglass for $1,500 for the remainder. The latter judgment was entered in 1875 and subsequently a rule was taken to open the judgment, etc., and another rule was taken to show cause why it should not be marked to the use of one Corbin. The docket entries showed “ rule discharged.” The judgment was subsequently opened, on rule, and, in 1880, the administratrix of Douglass, his widow, compromised the suit, receiving $300 on account of widow’s exemption and $300 on account of dower, as specified in the settlement of record, and the judgment was marked satisfied. In 1885, a rule was granted to show cause why satisfaction of the judgment should not be stricken off .and the judgment marked to the use of Ball, executor of Nathaniel Davidson, which rule was subsequently discharged. In 1876, Nathaniel brought an action of assumpsit against Corbin and the jury found a special verdict that, at the time of the conveyance to Barber, the $1,500 was to be appropriated to the support of Nathaniel. In 1887, Ball, as executor of Nathaniel, brought an action of assumpsit against the administratrix of Douglass to recover the amount of the judgment for $1,500 paid to her. The pleas were payment, non assumpsit, res adjudicata and the statute of limitations. “ At the trial, there was some testimony that the $1,500 was to be used for the support of Nathaniel, but the evidence of the trust was vague. The plaintiff testified that he learned of the payment to the defendant in 1884. The court gave binding instructions for the •defendant. Held, not to be error.