Buchanan v. Hazzard
This text of 95 Pa. 240 (Buchanan v. Hazzard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered,
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 Pa. 240, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-hazzard-pa-1880.