
    CONSHOHOCKEN AVENUE.
    A jury has no power to settle disputes as to title between rival claimants, but is confined to ascertaining the amount of damages done to the property.
    Certiorari to the Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County. No. 175½ January Term, 1876.
    This case arose from a proceeding to assess damages caused by the opening of a State road, called Conshohocken Avenue, in Philadelphia. Amos and Wm. George originally owned the land on which this State road is located, and during their ownership the “Old Columbia Railroad” was constructed through their land, occupying the same land as that occupied by said Conshohocken Avenue subsequently. This land was taken by the State by virtue of the Acts of Assembly of February 26, 1826, April 9, 1827, and March 24, 1828. On December 20, 1861, the representatives of the Commonwealth, conveyed the entire bed of said railroad to the Philadelphia and Reading R. R. Co., who by deed of November 25, 1852, conveyed ail the right therein to Algernon and Percival Roberts, who now claim damages for taking the same. The use of the land for railroad purposes was discontinued some time in 1851. On July 20,1852, Charles E. DTnvilliers acquired the interest of the Georges by a deed which described the property by metes'and bounds, and included the bed of said railroad. The estate of said Charles DTnvilliers claimed damages tor the land, acquired as aforesaid, and also by virtue of the following transfer:
    Philadelphia, October 22, 1853.
    We hereby sell, transfer and assign to Charles E. DTnvilliers all our right, title and interest, with all material remaining on that section of the Old Columbia railroad, beginning at Monument Road Crossing and extending to the crossing of the County Line Road, with all privileges conveyed to us by deed of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company. The said section lying across the ground of the said C. DTnvilliers.
    A. & P. Roberts.
    Received October 22, 1853, of C. DTnvilliers Fifty Dollars in full for the above transfer.
    A. & P. Roberts.
    
      On the 17th day of July A. D. 1873, before me a Notary Public of the State of Pennsylvania, residing in the city of Philadelphia, personally appeared Pereival Roberts, who being duly affirmed did declare and say that he was one of the firm of A. & P. Roberts at the time of the signing of the within transfer ; that the same was signed by Algernon Roberts, of said firm, on behalf of himself and of him the said Pereival, and as such was delivered to the within named Charles DTnvilliers for the purpose within mentioned, and that the said signature is of the proper handwriting of him, the said Algernon Roberts, now deceased, by Affirmed and subcribed before me the day and year aforesaid.} Roberts.
    Affirmed and subcribed before me the day and year aforesaid.} Percival Roberts.
    Edw. H. Williamson,
    Notary Public.
    The counsel for the DTnvilliers’ estate claimed before the jury that the Roberts never had the fee, but that only an easement was acquired for the use of the railroad, and also that they had the fee by deed from George, and by use; and further that the Roberts were estopped by the instrument signed by them. The jury awarded to the DTnvilliers’ estate the sum of $10,000, which was reduced to $6,000 aferwards, but awarded nothing to Roberts. Roberts then filed exceptions, which the Court overruled, and confirmed the report of the jury on January 10, 1876. Roberts then appeal to the Supreme Court, complaining of the action of the Court below in overruling his exceptions.
    
      Charles H. Jones, Esq., for appellant, argued:
    The fee was vested in the Commonwealth: Act or March 24, 1828, 10 Sm. Laws, 113, 118; Act of February 25, 1826, section 8, 9 Sm. Laws, 45.
    The acts are in pari materia: Commonwealth vs. Fisher, 1 Penrose & Watts, 462; Commonwealth vs. McAllister, 2 Watts, 190.
    This fee passed to her grantees : Haldeman vs. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 14 Wright, 425; Craig vs. Mayor, &c., 3 P. F. S. 477.
    The Georges were under the'mistake of supposing that the title to this land reverted back to them, and this mistake in the law is shared by the counsel of the DTnvilliers’ estate, who claimed before the jury that Roberts never had the fee. Roberts and DTnvilliers were laboring under this mutual mistake, when the paper before mentioned was executed, and neither had any idea that any title to land passed by it. The consideration $50 for three acres, shows there was a mistake, for George sold part of the same land two weeks afterwards for $400 per acre. So also the instrument itself shows that the parties had no intention of selling land. It has no commencement or conclusion; no premises, habendum or tenendum. .It contains no words of inheritance, and is not under seal. Equity will relieve where there bas been mutual mistake, and the price is so inadequate as to show that there is a mistake: Coughenour vs. Stautt, 27 P. F. S. 191; Gross vs. Leber, 11 Wright, 520; Heacock vs. Fly, 2 Harris, 540; Rankin vs. Mortimere, 7 Watts, 374; Tenbrooke vs. Jahke, 27 P. F. S. 392; 1 Story’s Eq., Sec. 141, 143.
    When a party has acted in ignorauce of his title, and has executed an agreement prejudicial to his interests, he will be relieved in equity: Whelan’s Appeal, 20 P. F. S. 427; 1 Story’s Eq., Sec. 122; Trigg vs. Read, 5 Hump. (Tenn.) 529; Hunt vs. Rousmanier, 8 Wheaton, 216; Bingham vs. Bingham, 1 Vesey, Sen. 127; Champlin vs. Layton, 1 Edwards, Ch. Rep. 467; State vs. Paup, 8 English, (Ark.) 129.
    There was also an award to the Rector, &c. of Christ Church for $800 for part of this land, which was purchrsed from Wm. E. George, and as to this there was no claim that Roberts was estopped.
    J. E. Carpenter, Esq., for the church, and W. P. Messick, Esq., for D'Invilliers’ estate.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court below on February 5th, 1877, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

Conceding for the purposes of this case that the Acts of 6th of January and 1st of April, 1864, Purdon’s Digest, 1289, pi. 132, 133, 134 and 135, and the practice under them, authorize the same jury to assess the damages caused by the opening of a State road, claimed by all the owners of property on the route of the road, and to assess the benefits under one petition, and in the same manner as is practised in regard to laid-out streets in the city, yet we know of no law or rule that will authorize the jury to decide a dispute of title between owners claiming the same piece of property. The Court alone can do this in some formal manner. On the facts as presented in the report we are not able to discover' that any substantial error was committed.

Proceedings affirmed.  