The Lessee of Thomas Lloyd v. Abrabam Taylor

The Lessee of Thomas Lloyd v. Abrabam Taylor. Deed of feme covert. ' A deed by a feme covert, without acknowledgment, supported, on the usage of the province. Ejectment for ground in the city of Philadelphia. Mercy Masters, being seised in fee, married Peter Lloyd. Peter Lloyd and Mercy, his wife, convey to Ralph Asheton, in 1727. Ralph Asheton reconveys to Peter Lloyd, the land in question. ' Afterwards, in 1738, on a judgment against Peter Lloyd, the land in question was taken in execution and sold by the sheriff to the defendant for 1300Í. Plaintiff claims as heir-at-law to Mercy Lloyd, insisting, that his mother being a feme covert, could not legally convey her estate, without an examination by writ. And though in the case of Davey v. Turner, tried in this court September 1764 (ante, p. 11), it was ruled, that an acknowledgment of the deed, on a private examination before a justice of peace, was sufficient, under a long usage, to sanctify her deed, though not strictly agreeable to law; yet, here, there was not even that acknowledgment or private examination. [MAJORITY] But it appearing m evidence, that it had been the constant usage of the province, formerly, for femes covert to convey their estates in this manner, without an acknowledgment or separate examination ; and that there were a great number of valuable estates held under such titles, which it would be dangerous to impeach, at this time of day, the Court gave a charge to the jury in favor of the defendants, founded on the maxim communis error facit jus. And the jury accordingly found for the defendant. This case appears, from a MS. report, to have been argued at great length, by-Messrs. Dickinson and Wain, for the plaintiff and by Ohew and Tilghman, for the defendants. In the course of the trial, parol evidence was offered to show that, after the execution of the deed, Mrs. Lloyd expressed her dissatisfaction with it, and declared that she did not intend to disinherit her issue; but after argument, the evidence was rejected. See the note to Davey v. Turner, ante, p. 11.