Borowsky v. Margulis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sciiaepeb,
This case has been tried twice. The verdict in each instance was for plaintiffs. As the main question raised by defendant was one of good faith on the part of plaintiffs, two verdicts in their favor should have ended the litigation, unless some real error was committed on the last trial. None was.
The appellee has stated the question involved: When, after an “under and subject” conveyance, the vendor, because of the vendee’s default, is obliged to pay the encumbrance which formed part of the purchase price, may he recover from the vendee, on the latter’s implied…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Philadelphia v. StewartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- May's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Blood v. Crew Levick Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Bausman v. Credit Guarantee Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Appeal of KemmererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Britton v. RothSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Daily Express, Inc. v. Northern Neck Transfer Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Ellsworth Et Ux. v. HusbandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Cauffiel v. GlennSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Harrison Music Co. v. Colonial Underwriters, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.