Davidson v. of Young

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 1, 1895

Davidson v. of Young, 167 Pa. 265 (Pa. 1895)

31 A. 557; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 891

Fell, Green, McCollum, Pee, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam,

This feigned issue, awarded for the purpose of determining how much, if anything, was due upon the judgment in question, *270depended on questions of fact which were exclusively for the consideration of the jury. It was fairly submitted to them in a clear and adequate charge in which there appears to be no substantial error. An examination of the record, with special reference to the assignments of error, has satisfied us that neither of them should be sustained. There is nothing in any of them that requires discussion. The evidence properly before the jury was quite sufficient to warrant them in finding in favor of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Samuel Davidson, of Reuben Young v. Isaac L. Young
Cited By: 6 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Judgment — Issue to determine validity of judgment — Parol evidence On an issue between an executor and a son of testator to determine the validity'of a judgment against the son in favor of testator, the case is for the jury where the parol evidence on behalf of plaintiff tends to show that at the time the judgment was given it was verbally agreed that it was merely to secure the father’s support in case he met with reverses, and that no portion of it was ever td be collected unless he needed it for that purpose. In such a case it is not improper for the court to charge the jury that, “if the parties entered into that arrangement, although there was no fraud, accident or mistake, and Reuben Young or his executor afterwards undertook to use the bond for a purpose that was not contemplated, and contrary to the agreement of the parties at the time the bond was executed, then we say that the defendant would be entitled to recover, for that would be a fraud.”