Peck v. Harriott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In ERROR. IN the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county, to which this was a writ of error, a case was stated for the opin;on Gf the Court, to be considered as a special verdict, of 7 * 7 which the following is the substance, Gad Feck and Jared Shattock, on the 17th October, 1815, executed a power of attorney, by- which they authorised Seth Toung, to contract for sale, sell, and convey, any parts or parcels of certain lands, of which they were seised, lying in the counties…
Read the full summary
In ERROR. IN the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county, to which this was a writ of error, a case was stated for the opin;on Gf the Court, to be considered as a special verdict, of 7 * 7 which the following is the substance, Gad Feck and Jared Shattock, on the 17th October, 1815, executed a power of attorney, by- which they authorised Seth Toung, to contract for sale, sell, and convey, any parts or parcels of certain lands, of which they were seised, lying in the counties of Erie, Crawford, Warren, and Venango; confirming and ratifying all that their said attorney should do in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Duncan J.,
delivered the Court’s opinion.
The plaintiffs in error, being the owners of certain lands In the counties of Erie, Crawford, Warren, and Venango, on the 17.h October, 1815, constituted one Seth Toung, their attorney, in their names to contract for sale, sell, and convey, any parts or parcels of the lands, ratifying and confirm- ' ingall that their said attorney might lawfully do in the premises. On the 29th December, in the same year, Toung, contracted to sell to the defendants, two parcels of the lands. The vendees covenanted to pay the purchase money in four annual instalments,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Carson v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- Stewart v. WoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876