Mitchell v. Mitchell

Decided May 8, 1905

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1905-05-08

Appeal, No. 32, Jan. T:, 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1902, No. 190, on verdict for defendant in case of Joseph Mitchell v. Frederick E. Mitchell, Polly Mitchell et al. Ejectment for land in the city of Wilkesbarre. Before Halsey, J. At the trial it appeared that Frederick E. Mitchell was indebted to his brother, Joseph Mitchell, in the sum of 1100.

Relies on Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.'s Appeal · Zuver v. Clark

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1905-05-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1954

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1The principle volenti non fit injuria is a good defense to what would otherwise be actual fraud: Zuver v. Clark, 104 Pa. 222, and a fortiori it is good against merely constructive fraud. The jury have found that plaintiff knew and assented to the conveyance by defendant to the latter’s wife. That ended the plaintiff’s case.

¶2An attorney at law who acts for both parties in negotiations or communications in presence of both is a competent witness for either as to such matters: Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. 514.

¶3Judgment affirmed.