Carner v. Peters
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 117, April T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., June T., 1897. No. 12, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit. Before Greer, P. J. The court below submitted all the questions of fact in controversy between the parties to the jury, but reserved the question of law as to whether plaintiffs could recover, by reason of the contract having been in parol, with the right to enter judgment for the defendant, non obstante veredicto.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 117, April T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., June T., 1897. No. 12, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit. Before Greer, P. J. The court below submitted all the questions of fact in controversy between the parties to the jury, but reserved the question of law as to whether plaintiffs could recover, by reason of the contract having been in parol, with the right to enter judgment for the defendant, non obstante veredicto. The jury found a verdict for plaintiffs for $800 and costs of suit. The facts sufficiently appear from the following extracts of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
On a contract of sale, at common law, if the vendee refused to comply, the vendor might either tender performance and sue for the price, or resell and hold the vendee for the difference between the price thus obtained and the contract price. The statute of frauds has modified this rule as to parol contracts for the sale of land, and leases for more than three years; in effect, prohibiting the recovery of the contract price in such cases. The vendor, however, may still resell, and hold the vendee for the difference in prices: Ewing v. Tees, 1 Binney, 450; Irvine v. Bull, 4…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bowser v. CessnaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Irvine v. BullSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Irvine v. BullSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838