Hay v. Baer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 93, April T., 1911, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1903, No. 584, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James Hay v. Morris Baer. Assumpsit to recover rent. Before Frazier, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $261.56. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in overruling motion for defendant n. o. v.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
In the sealed instrument dated December 12, 1902, on which this action of assumpsit was founded, the plaintiff bargained, sold, and agreed to convey to defendant, by-deed in fee simple, certain premises on Graham street, and in consideration thereof defendant bargained, sold, and agreed to convey to plaintiff, by deed in fee simple, certain premises on Stratford avenue. It was further agreed that deeds for the properties should be delivered on or before February 15, 1903. The instrument contained the proviso that the defendant should have “the option of paying $11,000…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Codding v. WoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Weaver v. GriffithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Rapp v. RappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Smith's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Case v. CushmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Silverthorn v. SilverthornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Schwartz v. Furman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1955