Legal Opinion · Dissent

Leiser v. Hartel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 24, 1934No. Appeal, 227Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Maxey,

I do not concur in the majority opinion in this case and I expressly dissent from it.

The chancellor found as a fact (5) that on December 27, 1924, Jane C. Harrison made, executed and delivered a deed to Oscar R. Hartel, Ms heirs and assigns, to three described tracts of real estate (being one of the properties in controversy), and (6) Hartel accepted this deed and on November 19, 1932, he caused it to be duly recorded, and (7) Jane C. Harrison on February 6, 1909, conveyed to Hartel, his heirs and assigns, certain described real estate (being the other…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Atlas Portland Cement Co. v. American Brick & Clay Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Kratz v. AllentownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Earnest's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
  4. Irwin v. PatchenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
  5. Cragin's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API