Legal Opinion

Horridge v. Badman

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County

Decided August 10, 1966No. 5Published

1Opinion of the Court

PlNOLA, P. J.,

Plaintiffs seek to set aside a deed to property sold to them by defendants because of fraudulent representations with reference to the extent of the property.

Statement of Pleadings and Issue Raised

The pleadings consist of a complaint and answer. The issue involved is whether the sale of the property by defendants to plaintiffs should be set aside and the consideration returned because of fraudulent representations by defendants as to the boundaries of the property.

From the evidence, we make the following

Findings of Fact

1. Plaintiffs, John Horridge and Violet Horridge, are…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Wolf v. Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Nathanson v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  3. Shearer v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Hoock v. BowmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Kienlen v. HoltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

9 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