Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hankin v. Mintz

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 11, 1980No. 2828Published

1ConcurrenceCavanaugh, Judge

I join in the majority opinion and add the following. Whether the agreement, if any, under which appellant claims his right to possess the premises is an oral lease or some other interest in land, the statute of fraud applies. 33 P.S. § 1; 68 P.S § 250.202. However, in certain circumstances the statute of frauds will not bar enforcement of a oral agreement creating an interest in land. Ridley Park Shopping Center, Inc. v. Sun Ray Drug Co., 407 Pa. 230, 233, 180 A.2d 1, 3 (1962) (lease and substantial improvements); Whiting and Co. v. Pittsburgh Opera House Co., 88 Pa. 100, 103 (1878) (lease);…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ridley Park Shopping Center, Inc. v. Sun Ray Drug Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  2. Walter v. TransueSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  3. Whiting & Co. v. Pittsburgh Opera House Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
  4. Bratsch v. McCarthySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API