M'Dowell v. Cooper
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county, it appeared that this was an amicable action of debt, in which John MlDowell and Robert M‘Clelland were plaintiffs, and Robert Cooper, James Chrisioell, and David Mitchell, administrators of William Mitchell, deceased, defendants, to recover the balance due upon a bond given by the defendants’ intestate to the plaintiffs, dated the 29th of March, 1813, and conditioned for the payment of six hundred…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county, it appeared that this was an amicable action of debt, in which John MlDowell and Robert M‘Clelland were plaintiffs, and Robert Cooper, James Chrisioell, and David Mitchell, administrators of William Mitchell, deceased, defendants, to recover the balance due upon a bond given by the defendants’ intestate to the plaintiffs, dated the 29th of March, 1813, and conditioned for the payment of six hundred and forty-five dollars and fifty cents, on the.- 1st of April, 1818. , This bond was given for part of the.price of a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
This case comes up again, I think, in no material respect different. The deficiency of eight acres in a survey of four hundred and twenty-nine acres, is no more than a purchaser may reasonably expect. It is, however, unnecessary to decide, whether on articles executory the vendee would not be entitled to a deduction for this deficiency in an action on the articles, for that is not this case. It is an action of debt on the bond, where a conveyance had been accepted and bonds and mortgage given for the purchase money. There was nothing to be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Byers v. MullenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Haggerty v. FaganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831