Opinion
October 3, 1935.
November 25, 1935.
Frauds, statute of — Oral agreement for possession of land — Proceeding under Act of April 20, 1905, P. L. 239, for possession.
In a proceeding under the Act of April 20, 1905, P. L. 239, by a purchaser of land at sheriff's sale, to obtain possession of the property, an oral agreement under which the respondent claimed the right to remain in possession of the land, alleged to have been made by him and the president of a corporation which, he averred, was the beneficial owner of the land, was held to be within the prohibition of the statute of frauds, and of no binding effect in the proceeding.
Submitted October 3, 1935.
Before FRAZER, C. J., KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 22, March T., 1935, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1934, No. 4444, in case of George A. Dutton v. Elmer C. Andersen. Order affirmed.
Petition by purchaser at sheriff's sale for possession of land. Before MOORE, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Order entered directing delivery of possession of land to petitioner. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was order.
Franklin A. Ammon, for appellant.
Fred C. Houston, Joseph R. Doherty and McCloskey, Best Leslie, for appellee.
Petitioner below, purchased at sheriff's sale the land here in controversy, situate in Ohio Township, Allegheny County, and in these proceedings petitioned under the Act of April 20, 1905, P. L. 239, to obtain possession of the property. The lower court decreed in favor of plaintiff. The facts developed by the record are as follows:
Respondent, appellant in this court, in his answer claimed the right to remain in possession under an oral agreement alleged to have been made by him and the president of a corporation which (he averred) was the beneficial owner of the land. It is not necessary to set forth in detail the terms of the oral arrangement relied on; it is sufficient to say that it is within the prohibition of the statute of frauds, and of no binding effect in this proceeding.
The order directing delivery of possession to petitioner as trustee for Western Savings and Deposit Bank is affirmed at appellant's costs.