Montgomery County Law Reporter

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Erwin's Estate. upon the premises. That is the way they understood the matter; but whether the jury so understood the applications is not quite so clear. One of the jurors, at least, did not know of any such agreement; and we think he was competent to testify whether, by the direction of the parties, a...
More Description

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Erwin's Estate. upon the premises. That is the way they understood the matter; but whether the jury so understood the applications is not quite so clear. One of the jurors, at least, did not know of any such agreement; and we think he was competent to testify whether, by the direction of the parties, a certain item of damage was excluded; he could speak for himself if not for the jury: Roop vs. Brubaker, I Rawle, 304. If parties enter into agreements without reducing them to writing, disputes may follow as to what actually took place, and innocent parties may suffer by reason of such failure to preserve their contracts in writing. The plaintiff admitted his liability for the ice bill, and we allowed the justice's transcript to be put in evidence for the purpose of showing the date when suit was brought upon the claim; it was offered for no other purpose. By it the defendant fixed the- time when the debt was contracted. The suit was properly brought in assumpsit. There was such an alteration of the sealed instrument as to make the entire agreement, including the original lease, parol. There was a change of parties, change of term, and change of consideration. Carrier vs. Dilworth, 59 Penna. St. R., 406; Lehigh Coal and Navigation Co. vs. Harlan, 27 Id., 429. The reasons assigned for a new trial can not be sustained, and the new trial is refused. a/f Estate Of Joseph Erwin, Dec'd. J. bequeathed the net income of his estate to M. and E., to be paid to them equally during their natural lives, and upon their death the principal to be divided into four shares and to be paid to his children and grandchildren. Held that upon the death of E., the survivor, M., was entitled to the entire income for life. The words in the will imply a survivorship where those in remai...