Lessee of Hartley v. M'Anulty

4 Yeates 94
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 15, 1804
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 4 Yeates 94 (Lessee of Hartley v. M'Anulty) 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.

Bluebook
Lessee of Hartley v. M'Anulty, 4 Yeates 94 (Pa. 1804).

Opinion

Yeates, J.

This cause was tried on the 6th October 1803, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict for 95 J acres in Fannet township. He claimed under a sale by the sheriff, who seized and sold the same as the property of Alexander Moore. At the trial a point was made, and reserved for further consideration, whether the deed from Robert Karr, the patentee, to Alexander Moore, dated 5th April 1787, passed any estate to the grantee. No consideration was expressed in the body of the deed; but a receipt was subjoined thereto, whereby the grantor acknowledged that [95]*95“he liad received from the grantee 250 in specie, in full of the “ consideration money.”

The general rule of law, unquestionably is, that to raise an use by the execution of a deed, there must either be a gopd, or valuable consideration; as marriage, the payment of money, &c. By p bargain and sale on a general consideration, no use is raised. 1 Co. 176, a. Park. § 553. A bargain and sale for divers good causes and considerations, without any money, is not good, though it be recited, that the bargainee was bound by recognizance for the bargainor. Cro. El. 394. And it has been held, that the consideration of old acquaintance, or of being chamber fellows, will not raise an use. 2 Rol. Ab. 783, pi. 5, 6.

But it is equally clear, that there is no indispensable necessity, that t he consideration money should be contained in the deed itself. Because a bargain and sale without expressing any consideration, may be helped out by averment, that money was paid. 1 Keb. 12. 2 Inst. 672. 1 Co. 176. 7 Co. 39, a. 40, b. 11 Co. 24. 2 Rol. Abr. 786. pi. 1. 2 Mod. 250. 1 Leon. 170. Moor. 570. If no consideration is mentioned in a deed, you may enter into proof of consideration; 3 T. R. 474; but if any consideration is mentioned, and not said for other considerations, you r uinot prove any other. 1 Vez. 127. 2 Wins. 804.

ju ,, *A consideration will arise equally where a person ° J gives up a certain pecuniary advantage at the time of the gran', as when a sum of money is actually paid down. 2 Atlty. 156. The consideration of deeds is not to be weighed in too nice scales. Ib. 514. The quantum of a valuable consideration in a deed is not regarded in law. Ib. 148. 2 Vent. 35. Barnard. 384. 22 Vin. 202. pi. 2. In purchases, the question is not, whether the consideration be adequate, but whether it be valuable, without fraud, within the statutes of Elizabeth. Finch’s Rep. 104. 2 Cha. Ca. 159. And therefore it has been determined, that the consideration of a pepper corn is good to raise an use, to make a tenant to the prsecipe. 1 Mod. 262. 2 Mod. 249. 2 Vent. 35. Indeed, it has been said, that a deed from its solemnity, imports a consideration. 1 Fonbla. 335.' 3 Burr. 1663.

How then stands the case before the court ? Here is a receipt from Karr to Moore, for 250 specie. We know not what were the 250, whether eagles, half-eagle’s, dollars, cents or dismes ; but this we know, that they were specie, and we also know from the resolves of congress during the revolutionary war with Great Britain, that specie in its true signification means hard money, gold or silver, as opposed to the paper continental and state bills of credit, which the necessities of the times gave birth to. It then means something valuable, as the word coin in the English books, and of whatever value the 250 were, whether little or great, the word specie intrinsically imports a value. This then brings it to the case in 2 Rol. Abr. 785. pi. 2. If one in consideration of a certain sum of money, bargains and sells lands, [96]*96this is a good consideration to raise an use, without averment of any sum in certain; for the quantity of the sum is not material. It is a good sale, if there be any money. Moore 378.

The deed in question therefore passed an interest in the lands of Alexander Moore, and was recorded. Even considered as a voluntary deed, it was good as between the parties. And the lands having been taken in execution as the property of Moore, are well passed by the sheriff’s deed to the purchaser. And consequently, my opinion is, that judgment be entered for the plaintiff.

Smith, J.

A deed or other grant made without any consideration is, as it were, of no effect, for it is construed to enure to be effectual only to the use of the grantor himself. 2 Bla. 296. cites Perk. § 533- A bargain and sale is not good, if no consideration be alleged, not so much as pro quadam pecunia summa. T. Ray. 201. 7 Vin. 421. pi. 10. But upon the issue of non con-cessit, the want of setting it forth is cured by verdict; for it shall *be intended to be proved on the trial. 1 Vent. 108. 1 Lev. 308. If a man pleads a bargain and sale in which *- 97 no consideration of money is expressed, it must be averred that it was for money, and the words, for divers considerations, shall not be intended for money without averment. 7 Vin. 421 pi. 3. Cites Moore 569. 2 Rol. Abr. 786. 1 Co. 176. Though no valuable consideration be expressed in the indenture, yet if any were given, the same may be averred, and the land does sufficiently pass. 4 Inst. 672. 7 Vin. 421, pi. 4. If the deed expressed for a competent sum of money, though the certainty of the sum be not expressed, it is good enough; for, against this express mention of the deed, no averment nor evidence shall be admitted. 7 Vin. 421. pi. 3. 1 Bac. 277. Moor 378. 569.

If one bargain and sell lands in consideration of a certain sum of money, it is sufficient to raise an use. 2 Rob. Ab. 786.

The act of 3d April 1781, directs that all debts, contracts, &c. shall be liquidated by a scale, by reducing them to the true value in specie. The creditor shall recover the true value of his debt reduced to specie. 1 St. Laws 880, 882. Another act of 21st June 1781, declares, that congress, &c. have been necessitated by reason of the scarcity of specie, to emit large sums of paper money, &c., and the quantity of specie being of late considerably increased within the United States, that congress have recommended the repeal of all laws making paper bills of credit equal to gold and silver. 1 St. Laws 902. See also § 12, 14, 15 and 16, of the same act.

In the resolves of congress of 22d May 1781, the terms, real efficient money, that is to say, in silver and gold, specie value, solid coin, are all used as synonymous. Ibid. 7 May. Specie value is used in the same sense.

The principles and rules of the common law as now universally known and understood, are so strong against fraud in every [97]*97*98] shape, that the common law would have attained every object proposed by 13 Eliz. c. 5, relating to creditors only, and by 27 Eliz. relating to purchasers. Cowp. 434. 1 Bac. Suppl. 582. Whether a transaction be fair or fraudulent, is often a question of law: it is the judgment of law upon facts and intents. 1 Burr. 474, 497. 1 Bla. Rep. 196. Nothing is so silly as fraud. Lofft. 53. All statutes against fraud shall be liberally and beneficially expounded, to suppress the fraud. 3 Co. 82. 5 Co. 60, 77. 1 Atky. 205. Cowp. 434. The common law doth so abhor fraud and covin, that all acts as well judicial, as others, and which of themselves are just and lawful, yet being mixed with fraud and deceit, are in judgment of law wrongful and unlawful. 3 Co. 78. 1 Burr. 395. 2 Inst. 213, 215. There is no instance, where the *original contract is fraudulent, that any subsequent act can purge it. 1 Wils. 323.

If A.

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

Related

Parrott v. Baker
9 S.E. 1068 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1889)
Cox's Administrators v. Henry
32 Pa. 18 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Evans v. Dravo
24 Pa. 62 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1854)
Frink v. Green
5 Barb. 455 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
How v. Kemball
12 F. Cas. 622 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois, 1840)
Bank of United States v. Burke
4 Blackf. 141 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1835)
Buehler v. Gloninger
2 Watts 226 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1834)
Wharton v. Morris
1 U.S. 125 (Supreme Court, 1785)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Yeates 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lessee-of-hartley-v-manulty-pa-1804.