Loughran v. Kummer - 297 Pa. 179, 146 A. 534 (1929)

Rule:

The general principle of law is that the formal act of signing, sealing, and delivering is the consummation of a deed, and it lies with the grantor to prove clearly that appearances are not consistent with truth. The presumption stands against him, and the burden is on him to destroy it by clear and positive proof that there was no delivery and that it was so understood at the time. Where there is a deed absolute and complete in itself, attacked as being in fact otherwise intended there is a further presumption that the title is in conformity with the deed, and it should not be dislodged except by clear, precise, convincing and satisfactory evidence to the contrary.

Facts:

Appellee grantor, a bachelor 67 years of age, conveyed for $ 1 land to the appellant grantee, who was one of his tenants. A few days after, appellee filed a bill to set aside the deed on the grounds of confidential relationship, undue influence and impaired mentality. The trial court found that a deed absolute on its face had been executed, acknowledged, and delivered to the appellant grantee by the appellee grantor on condition that it would not be recorded until the appellee grantor's death. The trial court found that undoubtedly in the appellee grantor's mind, this meant that the deed was not to take effect until after his death and that he, demanding the return of the deed within a very few days after the delivery, thus revoked it and with that revocation revoked the gift. Appellant grantee sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Was the delivery of the deed conditionally made, such that a breach of such condition entitled the grantor to revoke the deed? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that despite the intentions of the parties, all control over the deed was relinquished when it was handed to the grantee. The court held that the grantor's condition that the deed be held until his death was merely a promise, the keeping of which lay in good faith, the breach of which entailed no legal consequences. The court held that the legal effect of the delivery was not altered by the fact that both parties supposed the deed would not take effect until recorded after the grantor's death. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remitted the record with a procedendo.