Wallace v. Harmstad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was an action of covenant upon a ground-rent deed, brought by "Wallace against Joseph Harmstad, to recover the arrears of ground-rent. A deed had been made by Arrison and wife to Joseph R. Harmstad, the defendant, conveying to him a lot of ground on the west side of Schuylkill Seventh street, Philadelphia, reserving thereout a yearly rent of sixty dollars, payable on the first days of January and July in each year.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was an action of covenant upon a ground-rent deed, brought by "Wallace against Joseph Harmstad, to recover the arrears of ground-rent. A deed had been made by Arrison and wife to Joseph R. Harmstad, the defendant, conveying to him a lot of ground on the west side of Schuylkill Seventh street, Philadelphia, reserving thereout a yearly rent of sixty dollars, payable on the first days of January and July in each year. Arrison and wife, by deed dated September 9th, 1839, recorded 11th September, 1839, conveyed the rent to Wallace. The first count in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
The doctrine of deeds stands on the principles of the common law: 'the doctrine of commercial instruments stands on the principles of .the law merchant. A deed is a solemn and a formal act: a commercial instrument is neither solemn nor formal. A deed is not intended for circulation or to be subject to alteration by the exigencies of trade; but a promissory note or a bill of exchange may induce new responsibilities while it flits from hand to hand as if it were a part of the general currency. It is not strange, therefore, that a commercial…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Vanhoose v. FairchildCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1941
- Pennymac v. Neff, E. v. PNC BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020