
    [Philadelphia,
    January, 15, 1829.]
    LANGER against FELTON
    IN ERROR.
    There is no.estoppel but between the parties to a deed. .
    A party to a fraud is competent to prove it.
    ■Writ of error to the Court of Commo.n Pleas of Philadelphia eounty. '
    
      Felton, the plaintiff below, brought an action for money had and received against Langer, the plaintiff in error. On the trial, the. plaintiff below offered to prove, by.one Catharine Dredger, that the defendant had acknowledged that he acted as the agent of- the plaintiff in purchasing a certain lot of ground from John Dredger, the. husband of the said Catharine, and'herself; That he also acknowledged that he had received from the plaintiff, for the purpose of paying in-part for the said lot, the sum of one hundred dollars: That the price agreed upon between the said John Dredger and the defendant, for the said lot, was one hundred and fifty dollars: That the defendant paid to John Dredger, towards the price of the said lot, fifty dollars only, and that the balance of the said purchase money, to wit, one hundred dollars, was secured by a mortgage given by the-plaintiff to the deponent’s husbandj John Dredger: That the deed and mortgage were prepared by the defendant, and that the witness could not read. . ■ ‘
    .To the admission of this evidence, the counsel fpr the defendant objected, and iri order to enforce the said objection, he produced and exhibited to the. court, a deed from the said John Dredger and wife, to the plaintiff for the said lot, dated .the day of , 1824, and a mortgage executed by the plaintiff to the said' John Dredger, dated the. . day of ' , 1824, to secure the payment of one hundred dollars, and referred the court particularly to the consideration money stated in the deed, and the receipt for the same signed by the said John Dredger. But the said court overruled the said objection, and permitted the witness to be examined, as to the facts offered to be proved. To this,opinion the defendant’s counsel excepted.
    
      Phillips, for the plaintiff in error.
    The witness was not competent. She could not be permitted to contradict her acknowledgment in the- deed.
    
      Dallas, contra,
    
    was stopped by the court.
   Per Curiam.

There is no estoppel' but between the parties to the deed. But here the offer was to prove a fraud; and there is no principle clearer than that a party to the fraud is competent to prove it. - , - 1 • ,

Judgment affirmed.  