Shoofstall v. Adams
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Orawford county. This was an action of ejectment by Jacob Shoofstall against Charles Adams, for sixteen acres of land. On the trial, the title was admitted to have been in John Reynolds on the 8th day of January, 1850, and previous thereto. 'At this date, Reynolds contracted to sell to Daniel Tingley, 64 acres 58 perches of land, of which this in controversy was a part.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Orawford county. This was an action of ejectment by Jacob Shoofstall against Charles Adams, for sixteen acres of land. On the trial, the title was admitted to have been in John Reynolds on the 8th day of January, 1850, and previous thereto. 'At this date, Reynolds contracted to sell to Daniel Tingley, 64 acres 58 perches of land, of which this in controversy was a part. The contract between Reynolds and Tingley was in writing, under seal, and executed by both, and was dated the 8th of January, 1850. By the terms of this contract, Tingley was to pay…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered at Philadelphia, Jan. 3, 1859, by
Strong, J.
— The argument is, that the defendant’s title can only be sustained in violation of the Statute of Frauds. That statute requires contracts for the sale of land to be in writing, but it fails to designate any written form of a contract. Any note in writing, if signed by the parties, or by the party to be charged, if the other has accepted it, is sufficient. 5 Watts, 528; 10 Id. 388. Even a receipt for the purchase-money will suffice, if it show the terms of the bargain. The land in controversy here, was part of a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Colt v. SeldenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
3Cited by3 opinions
- Smith & Fleek's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
- Sherraden v. ParkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Vafias v. Young, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1927