
    Snively against Luce.
    An unexecuted parol partition is void; and it is still parol when made by the intervention of agents acting by virtue of a parol authority, though their act be evinced by a writing under seal.
    ERROR to the common pleas of Butler county.
    This was an action of ejectment brought by Henry Snively against Stephen Luce, for a tract of land in Butler county; upon the trial of which the defendant, in order to maintain the issue on his part, offered in evidence certain depositions to prove, that John, Samuel, David, and Robert Cunningham, heirs at law of James Cunningham deceased, having been tenants in common of certain lands, including that in dispute, had, by parol, appointed four individuals to make a division and partition of the said lands between them ; that the persons thus appointed went upon the ground, and made the partition, and awarded to each of the said tenants in common, a particular part; and' to accompany this, proof with the award, in writing, signed by the men, acknowledged before a justice of the peace, and recorded. It did not appear that separate possession was taken, in pursuance of the partition. To this evidence the plaintiff objected, upon the ground that a partition made by parol authority- was void. The court below overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence ; to which exception was taken, and the same question was here argued by
    
      W. W. Fetterman, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Gilmore, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

An unexecuted parol partition is void; and it is still parol when made by the intervention of agents, pursuant to a parol authority, though their act be evinced by a writing under seal. That can give it no additional authority; and the whole being irrelevant, and void, ought not to have gone to the jury.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.  