Haines v. Stare
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Haines v. Stare, 249 Pa. 494 (Pa. 1915)
95 A. 81; 1915 Pa. LEXIS 749
Brown, Frazer, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart
Haines v. Stare
Opinion of the Court
The bill of the complainant was for the reformation of a deed. His incompetency as a witness to matters occurring in the lifetime of Sophia Stare, a deceased grantee, is the subject of the first assignment of error. It is not necessary for us to pass upon the question of his competency, for an admission of counsel for appellants in their history of the case is that his testimony was eliminated by the learned chancellor in making the decree. It is affirmed on the facts found and the conclusions reached by the trial judge.
Appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.
Reference
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Equity—Deeds—Mistake—Bill for reformation—Appeals—Moot questions. 1. Where in a suit in equity for the reformation of a quit claim deed, it appeared that the inference was to be drawn from the acts and declarations of both parties that the deed was intended to convey only plaintiff’s undivided interest in certain land, but that by mistake certain other land owned by plaintiff in severalty was included in the deed, for which the grantees gave no consideration, and for which they made no claim for more than eight years, the court made no error in reforming the deed so as- to exclude from its operation such land owned in severalty by plaintiff. 2. On appeal from the decree entered in such case where defendants assigned for error the admission in evidence of testimony which was incompetent, but where they admitted in their paper book that the lower court gave no copsideration whatever to such testimony in reaching its conclusions, the appeal was dismissed.