In re Shoemaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This ease came before the court on a petition presented by Henry Shoemaker, under the act of assembly of the 5th of February, 1S21, entitled, “A further supplement to an act entitled, £An act to enable executors and administrators, by leave of court, to convey lands and tenements, contracted for with their decedents, and for other purposes therein mentioned, passed the thirty-first day of March, 1792.’ ” The petition, in substance, set forth John H. Brinton, and Jonathan TV.
Read the full summary
This ease came before the court on a petition presented by Henry Shoemaker, under the act of assembly of the 5th of February, 1S21, entitled, “A further supplement to an act entitled, £An act to enable executors and administrators, by leave of court, to convey lands and tenements, contracted for with their decedents, and for other purposes therein mentioned, passed the thirty-first day of March, 1792.’ ” The petition, in substance, set forth John H. Brinton, and Jonathan TV. Condy, of the city of Philadelphia, Esqrs., by their deed of the 7th of May, 1803, granted to Henry Hurst, in fee, a…
1Per curiam
The petitioner insists on a right to redeem, after the lapse of eighteen years from the period fixed by the parties, on the ground, that, in equity, time is not of the essence of the contract. It is, however, clearly so here. The rent charge happens to be of more value now, than the sum prescribed in the conveyance to be paid for it. Hurst stipulated for seven years, in which to make his election, and the petitioner, claiming under him, demands twenty-five. No compensation is offered, nor could we enforce the acceptance of it, without driving the respondents into a new contract. Had the rent…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hollingsworth v. FryUnited States Circuit Court · 1800