
    RITCHY v. MARTIN.
    Declarations of vender — evidence of title — common source of title.
    The declarations of a vender at and before sale, are evidence against his title, and the declarations of the intestate are evidence as to title derived through the administrators, if personal.
    The declarations of one who is the common source of title to the litigants, is competent evidence affecting their title to personal property.
    Error to the Common Pleas. The suit below was trover for a horse. Ritchy, the plaintiff, claimed the horse as a gift from Post, his father-in-law. Martin, the defendant, claimed under a purchase from the administrators of Post. On the trial, the plaintiff, amongst other evidence of the gift to him, offered to prove the declarations of Post, that the horse had been so given to Ritchy, and was his property; which was objected to and ruled out by the court, as the declaration of a third person, a stranger to the transaction. The single question raised is, whether this testimony was admissible.
    
      Stewart, for the plaintiff,
    cited 1 Taunt. R. 141.
   Wright, J.

The deceased, Post, was the common source of title to the horse. The plaintiff claimed, as the donee of Post, and the defendant as the vendee of Post’s administrators, the same interest. It would seem hardly to admit of doubt, that Post’s declarations were evidence against his own title, and that the defendant, who claimed only to have afterwards come in to his right, could not object to it. We think the evidence competent. The judgment is reversed.  