Legal Opinion

Tudesco Et Ux. v. Wilson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1948No. Appeal, 73PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Fine, J.,

Morris Wilson, appellant, complains of the entry of judgment against him for want of an answer in an action of assumpsit by Ralph Tudesco and Grace, his wife, appellees, to recover a down payment of $1,600.00 as liquidated damages under a written agreement of sale.

Appellees’ statement of claim averred, inter alia: that on October 23, 1946, they contracted through their agents to sell to appellant premises 1859 East Washington Lane in the City of Philadelphia and’ that appellant agreed to pay the sum of $16,000.00, in cash; that $1,600.00 was to be paid to appellees on the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Sanders v. BrockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  2. Black v. American International Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  3. Heights Land Co. v. Swengel's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Hocking v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  5. Bucks County Construction Co. v. Alliance Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Traylor v. GraftonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  2. United Refining Co. v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Ronald Apalucci v. Agora Syndicate, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  4. Stein v. BruceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1963
  5. Phillips Petroleum Company v. Heber A. Peterson and Astrid N. D. Peterson, Phillips Petroleum Company v. John H. Haslem and Rebecca H. HaslemCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954

23 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