Landon v. Brown

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Landon v. Brown, 160 Pa. 538 (Pa. 1894)
28 A. 921; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 845
Cueiam, Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett

Landon v. Brown

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam,

We have considered this record with special reference to the *553several questions presented by the specifications of error, and are not convinced that either of said specifications should be sustained. The questions involved have been so well considered and satisfactorily disposed of by the learned auditor that we think the decree should be affirmed for reasons given in his ■report.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by N. N. Betts, cashier, etc., appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name
Landon v. Brown. Betts's Appeal
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Deed — Conditional delivery — Escrow. Where the future delivery of a deed is merely to await the lapse of ■ time, or the happening of some contingency, and not the performance of any condition, it will be deemed the grantor’s deed presently; but where the future delivery depends upon the payment of money, or the performance of some other condition, it will be deemed an escrow. Where in such a ease the grantee obtains possession of the deed without perfoi'ming the condition, he acquires at the most but a voidable title to the lands described in the deed. Delivery in escrow — Time when deed takes effect. In general, when an instrument is delivered as an escrow to a third person to be delivered to the grantee on a future event, it is not the deed of the grantor until the second delivery; but relation back to the first delivery is sometimes allowed in cases of necessity to avoid injury to the operation of tlie deed from events happening between the first and second delivery. A father executed a deed to his son, and delivered it to a third person to be held in escrow until the son should have paid the grantor’s debts. After the father’s death, the son obtained possession of the deed without having paid the debts. Held, that there was no relation back so as to vest title in the son at the date of delivery in escrow. Judgment — Revival—Deed. An owner of lands subject to a judgment executed a deed for the lands to Ms son, and delivered the deed to a third person to hold until all the debts of the grantor had been paid by the son. In Ms will he further directed that the deed should not be delivered to Ms son until the debts were paid. After the grantor’s death, the son obtained possession of the deed without having paid the debts, and subsequently signed an amicable scire facias to revive, as terre tenant, and also as executor of his father. Held, (1) that the son took the land under the deed, and not under the will; (2) that the title which he took was a voidable one; (3) that the amicable scire facias operated to continue the judgment against the land. Revival of judgment — Identification—Recitals—Practice. In order to continue the lien of a judgment, a scire facias to revive must correctly recite the original judgment and substantially identify it as to parties, date and amount.