Wood v. Praul
This text of 66 A. 528 (Wood v. Praul) 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
All that appellant’s evidence tended to show was a parol gift of land, prima facie ineffective under the statute, and not within any of the exceptions, as there never was any possession in the donee. The holder of the legal title lived in the house, paid the taxes and so far as the evidence showed was in actual as well as legal possession.
The opinions of the neighbors as to who appeared to be the head of the house were irrelevant gossip properly excluded.
The disclaimer of title by Maud E. Praul, the other defendant, should have been admitted of record and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff directed against her. But the error in that regard did no harm of which appellant can complain.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 A. 528, 217 Pa. 293, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-praul-pa-1907.