In re Nicholls
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In re Nicholls, 190 Pa. 308 (Pa. 1899)
42 A. 692; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1021
Dean, Fell, Green, Mitchell, Sterrett
In re Nicholls
Opinion of the Court
The evidence relied on by the petitioner to establish the fact of execution and delivery, by his father to him, of the alleged lost deed, etc., falls far short of the kind and degree of proof necessary to warrant any decree in his favor; and hence the court below was clearly right in dismissing the petition at his costs. We find nothing in any of the specifications of error that would warrant a reversal of the decree; nor do we think that either of them requires discussion.
For reasons given in the opinion of the learned trial judge the decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at appellant's costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In re Petition of James Nicholls. Appeal of James Nicholls
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Deed — Lost deed — Evidence—Delivery. On a petition to restore a deed alleged to have been given by a father to a son, and subsequently lost, the evidence must be clear and satisfactory of not only the existence of the deed, but also of the fact that it was delivered ; and if the son merely shows from the declarations of his father and other evidence that such a deed existed, but utterly fails to prove a delivery, his petition will be dismissed. There is no delivery of a deed from father to son and a leaving thereof in the father’s hands for safe-keeping merely, where the father shows the son the deed, and the latter, after taking it in his hands and looking at it, hands it back, and tells his father to keep it and what he had, as long as be lived, to which the father replied that he would do just as the son said. In decreeing the reproduction of a lost deed we are virtually establishing title to land by parol and the proofs should therefore be as explicit as in the case of the specific enforcement of a parol sale under the statute of frauds and perjuries. Per Archbald, P. J.