Legal Opinion

Williams Et Ux. v. Barbaretta Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 14, 1948No. Appeal, 161PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Patterson,

P. Paul Williams and Lillian A. Williams, Ms wife, appellants, filed this bill in equity to compel Alfred Barbaretta and Lillian Barbaretta, his wife, appellees, to specifically perform a written agreement for the sale of real estate. An answer was filed, the chancellor made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and entered a decree nisi, dismissing the bill for the reason that appellants failed to prove that Alfred Barbaretta was acting as agent for his wife when he agreed to an extension of time within which to effect settlement. This appeal is from the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Madden v. Glosztonyi Savings & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Beihl v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  3. Berhalter v. BerhalterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. O'Malley v. O'MalleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Rodgers Et Ux. v. SaxtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Schweitzer v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Mower v. MowerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Castle v. CohenDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Anderson v. CarterDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
  5. Messina v. SilbersteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

7 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