2 Rawle 104 | Pa. | 1828
The opinion of the court was delivered by
— The plaintiff showed a judgment, execution, levy, and sale of the land in-question, to himself. G. Armstrong was plaintiff in that judgment, and William Hum the defendant.
After the plaintiff had shown his title, Hum gave some testimony to show, that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the land, to give it to Hum on his paying to Blair the sum for which it was
Blair then offered in evidence a letter, or letters of instructions from Armstrong to him, and the deed from Campbell to Armstrong, to show the amount to be paid: it was about one hundred and fifty dollars, and this was the real dispute between the parties.
These were objected to, and rejected by the court, and exceptions signed. The grounds on which this decision was attempted to be supported were, 1. That a deed, not between the parties, was not evidence. This is often true, but not always. Here it was offered, n&t as a conveyance of. title, but as a paper referred to in the contract, and to show the -sum which Blair alleged was due before the defendant got the larfd; and next, the counsel went into the old contract with Campbell, and complaints against him. and Armstrong, Now, with this Blair had nothing to do. None of the misconduct
Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de. novo awarded-