Hickok v. Still
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 5, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1894, No. 1028, for defendant, on ease stated in equity. Case stated in the nature of a bill in equity for specific performance. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. JSrror assigned was in dismissing plaintiff’s bill.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 5, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1894, No. 1028, for defendant, on ease stated in equity. Case stated in the nature of a bill in equity for specific performance. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. JSrror assigned was in dismissing plaintiff’s bill. This contract of sale was a valid exercise of the power of sale given the executor under the will: Jones v. Wood, 16 Pa. 25 ; Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle, 231; King v. Merritt, 67 Mich. 194; Demurest v. Ray, 29 Barbour, 563; Ex parte Huff, 2 Pa. 227; Ship-pen v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The case stated is intended to take the place of a bill in equity to enforce the specific performance by the defendant of a contract for the sale of real estate made by his predecessor in the trust. Th.e primary question is whether the agreement entered into by Charles Still as executor was a valid exercise *157of the power of sale conferred upon him by the will of Sarah K. Still. The power given is in these words: “ I authorize and empower my executor at any time during the lifetime of my husband with his assent, and I direct him immediately upon the decease of my said…
2Cited by12 opinions
- C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. v. Potter CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1926
- Chesnut v. Master LaboratoriesNebraska Supreme Court · 1947
- Equitable Trust Co. v. Delaware Trust Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1947
- Moore v. TrainerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.