Riddle v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 4, 1897

Riddle v. Armstrong, 179 Pa. 263 (Pa. 1897)

36 A. 226; 1897 Pa. LEXIS 629

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff recovered a verdict for the southern part of the property, and no discussion is needed of any questions affecting that branch of the contention. As to the northern part of the *266property it need only be said that the deed from Maria L. Christy and her husband, dated December 4, 1881, to the defendant, was. executed, delivered and recorded about eight months before the deed from the same g’rantors to John M. Thompson, for the same premises, dated April 26, 1870, was placed on record. As between these two deeds the defendant’s title was superior. The question whether he had notice, or had reason to know of Thompson’s unrecorded deed, was fairly submitted to the jury and found in defendant’s favor. The instructions to the jury and the answers to points were quite as favorable to the plaintiff as could be expected under all the testimony, and we discover no error in these respects. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Ovington I. Riddle, of last will of Samuel L. Riddle, Sr. v. John M. Armstrong
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Deed — Recording deed — Notice. In an action of ejectment it appeared that the deed under which defendant claimed was executed, delivered and recorded about eight months before the deed from the same grantors under which plaintiff claimed, was placed of record. The latter deed was dated over ten years before the deed to the defendant. The evidence as to whether the defendant had notice, or had reason to know, of the unrecorded deed was conflicting, and • was submitted to the jury. Held, that a verdict and judgment for defendant should be sustained.