Burkhart v. Farmers' Union Ass'n
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 98, April T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Somerset Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 167, in favor of defendant, on case tried without a jury. Opinion by Beeber, J. Rice, P. J., dissents. W. D. Porter, J., concurs in the dissent. Assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 98, April T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Somerset Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 167, in favor of defendant, on case tried without a jury. Opinion by Beeber, J. Rice, P. J., dissents. W. D. Porter, J., concurs in the dissent. Assumpsit. Before Longenecker, P. J. It appears from the record that the defendant is a mutual insurance company, and in section 18 of its by-laws, printed on the face of its policy, it is provided as follows : “Any property insured by this company which shall be levied on or taken in possession under any proceeding in law, or if an assignment being…
1DissentRice, P. J.
Tbe deed from Burkhart to Miller was regular and absolute on its face. Under the act of 1881 the alleged parol defeasance was ineffectual to reduce it to a mortgage. The grantor could not enforce it specifically, nor could he maintain an action for damages for the breach of the parol agreement. It is “ the reduction itself which is forbidden by the act, and this must apply to every means, direct or indirect, by which that result is sought to be reached: ” Molly v. Ulrich, 133 Pa. 41. Whether or not the grantee would reconvey the premises and revest in the grantor tbe estate, depended wholly…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sankey v. HawleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Molly v. Ulrich, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lebanon County1890