Cusano v. Mecaskie
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 310, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1919, No. 6246, sitting in equity, dismissing bill in equity in case of Angelo Cusano v. James Mecaskie and Sarah Mecaskie. Bill in equity for specific performance. Before Shoemaker, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, among others, was the decree of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
Tbe plaintiff filed a bill praying for a decree of specific performance of an executory contract for tbe sale of real estate, entered into between bim and tbe defendants. Tbe agreement was in writing, dated 27tb of May, 1918. Therein tbe present defendants, tbe owners of a piece of real estate in tbe City of Philadelphia, covenanted and agreed to convey tbe same clear of all encumbrances for a price therein named. It contained a provision for tbe payment of $50 band money “which deposit shall be forfeited to tbe said party of tbe first part [tbe vendor] as liquidating…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Redevelopment Authority v. GallagherCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Witmer v. Niesley, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1968