McGary v. McDermott

57 A. 46, 207 Pa. 620, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 532
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 4, 1904
DocketAppeal, No. 136
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 57 A. 46 (McGary v. McDermott) 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
McGary v. McDermott, 57 A. 46, 207 Pa. 620, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 532 (Pa. 1904).

Opinion

Opinion by

Me. Justice Fell,

The bill filed in this ease was for the specific performance of [623]*623a contract alleged to have been made by the defendant to execute and deliver two judgment notes in consideration of the conveyance to him of an interest in land. It was competent for the plaintiff to show that the consideration named in the deed was not the only consideration for the conveyance. The receipt in a deed is only presumptive evidence of the real consideration, and it may be overcome by parol evidence of another or greater consideration, if not directly inconsistent with the deed: Jack v. Dougherty, 3 Watts, 151; Buckley’s Appeal, 48 Pa. 491; Lewis v. Brewster, 57 Pa. 410; Henry v. Zurflieh, 203 Pa. 440. The proceeding, however, being in equity, the rule obtained that the effect of a responsive answer can be overcome only by the testimony of two witnesses or of one witness and corroborating circumstances. On the vital question whether there had been an agreement for an additional consideration, the requirements of this rule were not met to the satisfaction of the learned judge who heard the witnesses. We are not convinced that there was any error in this finding.

The decree dismissing the bill is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

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

Related

Geraghty v. United States Parole Commission
579 F.2d 238 (Third Circuit, 1978)
Real Estate Co. of Pgh. v. Rudolph
153 A. 430 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Byrne v. Williams
11 Pa. D. & C. 415 (Greene County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Piper v. Queeney
127 A. 474 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Heller v. Heller's Executors
3 Pa. D. & C. 246 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Miller v. Belmont Packing & Rubber Co.
110 A. 802 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Tasin v. Bastress
110 A. 744 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Quinter v. Quinter
104 A. 580 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)
Zentmyer v. Zentmyer
69 Pa. Super. 496 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)
Bixler v. Heilman
44 Pa. Super. 603 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A. 46, 207 Pa. 620, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgary-v-mcdermott-pa-1904.