SUPREME COURT of Pennʃylvania :
GREGORY'S Leʃʃee verʃus SETTER.
E
JECTMENT for a Houfe and Lot.– The Plaintiff's Counfel offered to give parol evidence of the declaration of the Grantor made aƒter the execution of a deed, and cited 2 Chan. Ca. 180 Gilb For. Ram. 232.233. 2 Atk. 71. 150.
It was oppofed by the Defendant's counfel, who admitted that parol evidence might be given of a declaration made beƒore, or at the time of the execution of the Deed ; but contended, that it was not admiffible to prove a declaration aƒter; and they cited 1 Alk. 447.520. 1 State Laws 462. 2 Black. Rep. 1249. 1250.
by the court:— In this cafe a deed was made of the houfe in queftion to Mrs.Gregory in fee fimple ; and evidence is offered to prove, that the purchafe was made with the money of her deceafed hufband, part of which belonged to his children, and that the purchafe was for their and her ufe. If the acknowledged this fact at any time, it amounts to a confeffion againft herfelf, which may certainly be given in evidence.
Let the witnefs be fworm.
MORRIS verƒus FOREMAN.
I
T was RESOLVED in this cafe, upon a motion for a non-fuit,– 1ƒt. That the Court will allow the Plaintiff in an action upon a Bill of Exchange, to ftrike out a fpecial, as well as a general, indorfement on the Bill. 2dly. That a proteft for non-payment muft appear under a notarial feal ; but it is not neceffary that the non-acceptance fhould be certified in the proteft ; for, that may be fufficiently eftablifhed by other evidence. 3dly. That the poffeffion of a Bill of Exchange is evidence of an authority to demand payment of its contents.
