61 Pa. 407 | Pa. | 1869
The opinion of the court was delivered, March 27th 1869, by
The plaintiffs below claimed title under a deed from the defendant and his wife, dated July 17th 1864, for 98 acres 157 perches to Sarah Brooks.
Upon the trial the defendant offered to prove that this deed
To this it was objected that it was irrelevant, and could not be admitted to contradict or vary the terms of the deed, and that such proof was incompetent under the Statute of Frauds, and would not avail if proved to reform or change the plain terms of the deed.
The entire offer was rejected by the court, and in this they committed a clear error.
The evidence offered tended to prove gross misrepresentation and fraud on the part of the purchaser, and should have been admitted by the court. The decisions in Pennsylvania are uniform on this point. The rule is clearly laid down in Chalfant v. Williams, 11 Casey 215; Maute v. Gross, 6 P. F. Smith 255; Chew v. Gillespie, Id. 314, and in Rearich v. Swinehart, 1 Jones 233.
Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.