Dana v. Wright

<p>Oral agreement for the purchase of land — the vendee may show that, upon the faith thereof, he has made substantial improvements thereon — when deelardtwn.s of a party, hostile to but made before his acquiring Ms interests in the property, are admissible.</p> <p>This action was brought by the plaintiff, as the devisee of Charles Hathaway, deceased, to recover the possession of a lot formerly belonging to said</p> <p>■ Hathaway. The defense was, lbat the defendant had, prior to the death of the said Hathaway, entered into the possession of the lot under an oral agreement with him, which provided that the lot should belong to her, if-she should thenceforth support and maintain one Mary Hathaway, asister of the defendant and of the said Charles Hathaway, and that on the faith of tbe said agreement, she did provide for and maintain the said Mary Hathaway, and made permanent and valuable improvements upon the property.</p> <p>"Upon the trial, the defendant offered to prove that, after entering into possession of the premises, relying upon the said agreement, she made substantial and permanent improvements thereon.</p> <p>' Held, that the evidence was admissible, and that the court erred in excluding it.</p> <p>The defendant offered to prove by a witness, that the latter had heard the plaintiff say, at least three different limes, previous to the death of Charles Hathaway, and within a year thereof, that she was sorry for “herUncle</p> <p>Charles, and she did not know what he would do, for he had to give Mrs</p> <p>Wright (the defendant) the house she lived in for taking care of Mary.” . Held, that the court erred in excluding the evidence. (Per Westbrook, J.)</p>