Buchanan v. Hazzard

95 Pa. 240, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 307
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 4, 1880·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered,

Per Curiam.

The learned court below were clearly right in rejecting the evidence offered by the plaintiffs in error and complained of in the first assignment. Nothing is better settled than that a deed by a married woman without joining her husband is absolutely void; and evidence of the husband’s verbal assent could not help the matter : Trimmer v. Heagy, 4 Harris 487. Nor can she be estopped by any subsequent act or ratification: (Hidden v. Strupler, 2 P. F. Smith 400. Nothing but a new deed, duly executed and acknowledged, could avail. The subsequent deed to Batton could at most only be effectual to convey one-eighth of the royalty of the well. It could not, consistently with the doctrine of these cases, ratify and confirm the previous void lease to the Buchanans. There was no error in the answer to the defendant’s point, nor in the direction to find a verdict for the plaintiff. <

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Buchanan v. Hazzard, 95 Pa. 240, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 307 (Pa. 1880).

95 Pa. 240 (Buchanan v. Hazzard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

BOSSES v. MAHALSKY
74 A.2d 93 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Haines Trust
50 A.2d 692 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1946)
Paul v. Kunz
41 A. 610 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)
Holt v. Kaaukai
11 Haw. 497 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1898)
Stivers v. Tucker
17 A. 541 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1889)