Case Name: The Lessee of Miles Tipton and wife v. John Ross
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1840-12
Citations: 10 Ohio 273
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Lessee of Miles Tipton and wife v. John Ross.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 10
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
The Lessee of Miles Tipton and wife v. John Ross.
The declarations of a grantor in a deed, made after the date and supposed delivery, are good evidence to prove the delivery when offered against the grantor or his heir.
This is a motion for a new trial in an action of ejectment from the county of Harrison.
Both parties derive title from their father, John Ross, deceased.
The plaintiff claims as heir at law.
The defendant sets up a deed, executed by his father to himself and his brother James Ross. The execution of this deed is admitted, but its delivery is denied.
To prove the delivery, the defendant offered the declaration of his father, made after the execution of the deed. Those declarations were rejected at the trial, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The motion for a new trial is made because of the exclusion of this evidence.
B. S. Cowen, for the motion:
The admissions of an ancestor are evidence against the heir. Jackson v. McCall, 10 Johns. 377; Allen v. Parish, 3 Ohio, 107.
Admissions of the delivery of a deed by the party making the deed is evidence of the fact of delivery. Sicard v. Davis, 6 Peters, 136.
*Dewey and Stanton, contra: [274
No admissions of the grantor ought to be admitted except such as form a part of the transaction at the time of the alleged delivery. Otherwise, land may be conveyed by parol — for the delivery is as much a part of the deed as the sealing of it. The defendant is not without remedy; if his title is defective at law* and he has equity, he knows where to go for relief.

Opinion:
Lane, C. J.
The title of the owner of property is bound by his admissions. While one holds the title, the admissions he makes may be given in evidence against him and against his privy. The heir, pursuing the estate of his ancestor, takes his right and interest, incumbered by all that rests against it, before, descent. If this deed had been set up against John Ross, the father, while holding the land, his own admissions would have been competent evidence; they are equally competent when offered against his heir. New trial granted; costs to abide the event.
Declarations made by the person under whom the party claims, after the declarant has parted with his right, are inadmissible to affect any one claiming under him. Watson v. Cris, 11 Johns. 437; Weidman v. Rohr, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 174; Bartlett v. Delprat, 4 Mass. 702. And if it be doubtful whether the declaration was before or after the deed, it can not be received. Stockett v. Watkins, 2 Gill & Johns. 326. Declarations of the owner of property are admissible against one claiming his estate by purchase or by descent, by act of law or by act of the parties; and, in such case, it makes no difference whether the declarant be alive or dead. 2 Phil. Ev., Cowan & Hill's Notes, 644. And where such declarant is himself a competent witness, and present in court, his admissions are receivable. Woolway v. Rowe, 28 Eng. Com. Law, 52.
The defendant in an ejectment claimed by a deed from Hughey. A question arose whether this deed had been delivered to the defendant. The plaintiff offered to prove that Hughey acknowledged before he conveyed to the defendant, that he had not paid the purchase money, and had no title. The evidence was rejected on the ground that it would affect a third person. But the reporter thought this a hasty decision. Clark v. Arnold, 2 Hayw. 287.