Loewenstein v. Armstrong
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 212, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1904, No. 652, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Benjamin Loewenstein v. William H. Armstrong, trading as William H. Armstrong. Assumpsit for return of forfeit money paid under an agreement for purchase of real estate.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 212, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1904, No. 652, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Benjamin Loewenstein v. William H. Armstrong, trading as William H. Armstrong. Assumpsit for return of forfeit money paid under an agreement for purchase of real estate. The material provisions of the contract were as follows: “ Two hundred and fifty dollars of the purchase money being paid on account at the signing of this agreement, and the balance of ten hundred and fifty dollars, together…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The defendant’s contention amounts to this, that the plaintiff forfeited the money paid upon the execution of the contract because he did not tender the balance of the purchase money and a deed, prepared for execution by the owner of the premises, within thirty days. We quote the language of his counsel: “The agreement was signed on January 5th, 1904. Not until the 19th of February did the plaintiff, according to his statement of claim, tender to the defendant a deed, together with the purchase money. This was some four or five days after the expiration of the time…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eberz v. HeislerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Vankirk v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hopkins v. PhillipsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921