Sample v. Horlacher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 195, Jan. T., 1896, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 333, on verdict for defendants. Ejectment for a lot of ground in Montoursville.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 195, Jan. T., 1896, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 333, on verdict for defendants. Ejectment for a lot of ground in Montoursville. Before Metzger, P. J. At the trial it appeared that Elizabeth Horlacher owned the land in dispute, and had mortgaged it to raise $800 which she loaned to her son John H. Horlacher, taking from him his note for $800. She subsequently entered into a parol contract with her son by which he was to erect a house on a part of the lot and was to keep an account of all labor and materials which he used, and to render an…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We are by no means convinced that the learned trial judge erred in directing the jury to find for the defendants. On the contrary, a careful consideration of the evidence on which the plaintiff relies has led us to the conclusion'that it does not come up to the measure of proof that is required in such cases. As was said in Hart v. Carroll, 85 Pa. 510, “ In order to take a parol contract for the sale of lands out of the operation of the statute of frauds its terms must be shown by full, complete, satisfactory and indubitable proof. The evidence must define the boundaries and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bowers v. BowersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Woodbridge v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wright v. NultonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Kirk v. Ford Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Manley v. ManleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Brewer v. LohrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Lemmon v. LemmonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.