Becker v. Second Active Building Ass'n
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 202, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T. 1909, No. 4751, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Katharine Becker v. Second Active Building Association. Assumpsit on a contract. Before Bregy, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial when the plaintiff was on the stand the defendant asked for an offer of proof.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 202, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T. 1909, No. 4751, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Katharine Becker v. Second Active Building Association. Assumpsit on a contract. Before Bregy, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial when the plaintiff was on the stand the defendant asked for an offer of proof. Mr. Byron: We have on record a great many admissions which really bring the case down to a close point as to whether or not there was any agreement of exchange — as to what the agreement was.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
This, appeal has nothing to support it. What is complained of is the rejection of an offer of evidence to prove an oral agreement, made contemporaneously with the written agreement by which the parties covenanted for an exchange of certain properties. The plaintiff was owner of two separate lots in the City of Philadelphia, both alike subject to the lien of a mortgage for $8,570.., The defendant was owner of another property *593in the City of Philadelphia which was subject to a lien of a mortgage for $3,600. By written articles of agreement dated 13 September, 1901,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Croyle v. Cambria Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hamilton v. FleckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Heller v. Heller's Executors, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County1922