Case ID: yeates_1/html/0304-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Goodright lessee of Peter Baker against Daniel Miller and John Shorb.
    The declarations of a debtor, that he had sold the lands to another, cannot be given in evidence against the sheriff’s vendee, to overreach a judgment obtained against him, and a consequent sale.
    Ejectment of 69 acres of land in Germany township.
    The lessor of the plaintiff grounded his title on a sheriff’s deed, founded on a judgment entered on 14th August 1766, against Martin Miller, who was then in possession of the lands, which were sold as his property.
    The ejectment had been commenced against the said Martin Miller and Daniel Miller his son. John Shorb had been substituted a co-defendant, as landlord of the said Daniel after the death of Martin his father, whose death was suggested on the record.
    The deposition of Margaret Miller, widow of the said Martin, taken in pursuance of a rule of court, was offered in evidence, tending to shew that her husband had declared he had surrendered up and assigned over the lands in question to ■ George Ross, esq. previous to the judgment entered against him, and that they afterwards held the same by the licence of Mr. Ross; but no written proof was adduced to. shew such assignment.
    
      The reading thereof was objected to by the plaintiff.
    It turned out on the examination of witnesses, that the said Margaret occupied a small outhouse on the lands in question, and was wholly supported by her son, who managed the business of the farm for his own benefit, she being then seventy years of age. •
    For the plaintiff it was contended, that the witness could not give evidence to support her own possession. She holds under the licence of Mr. Ross, and it is material to her to ascertain his right. She is interested in the question trying, i Stra. 414. And the repelling of a witness is not -confined to an immediate interest; for if he be called to a matter where he claims under the same title, though he be not affected in that action, yet he shall not be admitted. Theor. Evid. 94. One who apprehends * himself interested, though under a mistake, is no witness. 1 Stra. 129. L
    It was argued for the defendants, that by the death of her husband, pending the suit, the witness ceased to be interested. She is no party to the suit, nor in any shape liable for costs. She must be considered in sound sense, as an inmate of her son, though living in a separate dwelling. The old exceptions against witnesses are greatly narrowed by the modern decisions, and are now restrained to immediate interest, and where the verdict can be given in evidence by the witness in another suit. 3 Term Rep. 27, 32, 34, 36, 309, 310. 4 Burr. 2251. 4 Term Rep. 20. And neither of these grounds will hold in the present instance.
   By the court.

Perhaps the widow would be a competent witness in a common case. But the true objection against her testimony appears to us to be the subject matter of it. On principles of general convenience, it would be highly dangerous to admit evidence of this kind to impeach the titles of vendees under sheriff’s sales. If declarations of the debtor, that he had sold the lands to another, could be brought forward in this way to overreach a judgment against him, no one would ever purchase at a sheriff’s sale, and every cre'ditor would be at the justice, if not-mercy of his debtor. If there has been a bona fide sale by Martin Miller previous to the judgment, let it be shewn by the written agreement or conveyance. Should they have been lost, prove them by copies, or give their contents to the jury by parol evidence. No inconveniences can result from this better mode of proof; but it is of the utmost importance to the community, that in disputes like the present,, which unfortunately have become too frequent, that the rules of law should be rigidly adhered to; and therefore we feel ourselves constrained to overrule the deposition.'

The lands in question having been bought at a very inadequate price 61. 15s., (owing to an idea which prevailed at the sheriff’s sale, that they belonged to the family of Digges, under a Maryland patent) though they were proved to be really worth between 7I. and 81. per acre, the cause was accommodated by the recommendation of the court; and the counsel agreed, that a verdict should be given for the plaintiff for 69 acres, with stay of execution until the 25th March next, and until the sum of 120I. should be paid by the lessor of the plaintiff to the defendants.

Cited in 91 Pa., 27, in support of the decision that the declarations of a debtor, that his wife owned land, sold on a judgment against the debtor, are not evidence to impeach'the title of the vendee at the sheriff’s sale.

Messrs. Ingersoll, 'Hamilton and Bowie, pro quer.

Messrs. Hartley, Duncan and C. Smith, pro def.