Legal Opinion

Piesneski v. Stepien

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 16, 1930No. Appeal, 216PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs and defendants entered into a contract for the exchange of certain pieces of real estate owned by them respectively. Within the period of six months fixed in the contract for the consummation of the exchange, defendants refused to fulfill their obligation. Plaintiffs filed a bill in equity praying for specific performance, to which defendants filed an answer setting up certain defenses. The trial of the issues raised by these pleadings resulted in a formal adjudication, containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decree of specific performance against…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Berlin Smokeless Coal & Clay Co. v. RohmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rambo Building & Loan Ass'n v. DragoneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Duc v. Struckus Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Severance v. Heyl & PattersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. Arlia v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1950

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API