Hudson v. Reel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Iu-error from the Common Pleas of Huntingdon. May 24. Debt on a single bill, dated 8th April, 1889, for $300, with an under-written agreement signed by the maker, that the above sum “is to be applied and accounted a part of the hand-money as mentioned in the article of agreement between Hudson and Reel, if said Reel pays the remainder of the hand-money as specified in the article, on the 22d inst.”
Read the full summary
Iu-error from the Common Pleas of Huntingdon. May 24. Debt on a single bill, dated 8th April, 1889, for $300, with an under-written agreement signed by the maker, that the above sum “is to be applied and accounted a part of the hand-money as mentioned in the article of agreement between Hudson and Reel, if said Reel pays the remainder of the hand-money as specified in the article, on the 22d inst.” By these articles, Hudson agreed to sell Reel certain lands, for which. $1500 was to be paid on the 1st April, 1839. Defendant then proved that this bill was given for money paid by plaintiff to…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We see nothing in the charge of the court 'below, of which the plaintiff in error .has reason to complain. The ■sole question in the cause was, whether at the time the .bill single sued on was given by Hudson to Reel, the parties contemplated a possible rescission of the contract of sale by a failure on the part of Reel to comply with his agreement to pay $1500 of the purchase-money on the 22d of April, in which event the parties were to be remitted to their original position ? Such an understanding is certainly to be gathered from the face of the bill single, and the written stipulation…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Churchman v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Feay v. DecampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1826