Fitzpatrick v. Engard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 237, Jan. T., 1896, by defendants, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 272, on bill in equity. Bill in equity for the specific performance of a sale of land.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 237, Jan. T., 1896, by defendants, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 272, on bill in equity. Bill in equity for the specific performance of a sale of land. The case was heard on bill, answer, replication and proofs, before Arnold, J., whose findings of facts and conclusions of law were as follows : The defendants, Emma Engard and S. Louisa Hetzel, being the owners of the property Nos. 268 and 270 South Second Street, in the city of Philadelphia, placed it in the hands of George L. Parker, a real estate agent, for the purpose of obtaining a buyer. After the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The first, second and fifth specifications, relating to the findings of fact recited therein, are not sustained. An examination of the record has failed to convince us that there is any substantial error in either of the learned judge’s findings, and, so far as they are necessary to support the decree, they must be accepted as verity. His conclusions of law, complained of in the third and fourth specifications, are also correct. We find nothing in either of the first five specifications that requires discussion.
While the elements of a proper decree — based upon the facts found by…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Mondragon v. MondragonTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- Suchan Et Ux. v. SwopeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Gerlock v. GabelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Smith v. DowlingSupreme Court of Florida · 1921
- Kenworthy v. Equitable Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.