Legal Opinion

Medusa Portland Cement Co. v. Lamantina

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 25, 1945No. Appeal, 154PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Horace Stern,

The curious fact in this case is that, a corporation having purchased a tract of land, and having made a substantial payment to the vendor at the time of the making of the contract, and having made another such payment five years later, and having paid interest on the remaining instalment still due, and having taken and, together with its successor, maintained possession until the present time (a period of 21 years), the successor corporation now claims that there are defects in the title to the coal underlying part of the tract, notwithstanding that, if…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. President, Managers & Co. of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  2. Eaton v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Law v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
  4. Ludwick v. HuntzingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
  5. Plummer v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Diederich v. WareCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1956
  2. Moser v. GranquistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  3. Bezjak, J. v. Diamond, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Barter v. Palmerton Area School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Parrillo v. SiravoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1967

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API