Jackson v. ShearmanJackson v. Shearman
Assuming thаt the plaintiff made out, in the first instance, a prima facie evidence of good title, the validity of the defence turned upon the point of the competency оf the parol proof of the lease and its. assignments. The lease belonged to the plaintiff, upon the. statement of the case, and was -in his possession prеvious to the circuit in 1808. Notice was given to. him, previous to. that circuit, to produce it upon the trial. The cause wаs not tried until the circuit in 1809, but the effect of the notice was not spent. It applied to the trial, without reference to the time. It does not appear, that the cause was noticed for trial in 1808; and if it had so appeared, it would not have destroyed the effect pf the notice, in reference tо a subsequent circuit, unless it had appeared that the notice was special, and confined to that particular circuit.
The object of the notice was general, and to. inform the plaintiff that thе lease in his possession would be
If, after such notice given, the plaintiff had pаrted with the lease, he ought to have apprizеd the defendant of it, so that he might know where to look for it. In this case, the lease was in the court of сhancery ; but as it does not appear by what mеans it came there, we must presume it was placed there at the instance of the plaintiff, and was liable to be withdrawn upon his application. Fоr the purposes of the notice, it was still to be сonsidered as under his control, and in his possession.
If the parol proof was admissible, then the defendant showed that O’Reilly hаd no title. His wife had only a life estate, and after hеr death the title under the lease reverted baсk to Henry Shearman, under whom, as his son and heir, the defendаnt possessed.
The next point in the case is, as to the acknowledgments of Henry Shearman. These acknowledgments of the party, as to title to real property, are generally a dangerous species of evidence ; and though good to support a tenancy, оr to satisfy doubts in cases of possession, they ought not to be received as evidence of title. This wоuld be to counteract the beneficial purposes of the statute of frauds. The extent of the titlе transferred from Shearman to his daughter, and from her to O’Reilly, restеd upon higher evidence than upon parol proof оf acknowledgments by the party. It rested upon the written assignments of the lease, and the legal evidenсe of the extent and effect of these assignments ought to prevail.
The court are, therefore, of the opinion, that judgment ought to be given for the defendant.
Judgment for the defendant.