Wolf v. Christman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 269, Jan. T. 1901, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1899, No. 115, on bill in equity in case of Frederick Wolf, Henry Wolf and Albert J. Wolf, Executors of Adam Wolf, v. William H. Christman. Bill in equity for specific performance, or in the alternative to refund money paid.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 269, Jan. T. 1901, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1899, No. 115, on bill in equity in case of Frederick Wolf, Henry Wolf and Albert J. Wolf, Executors of Adam Wolf, v. William H. Christman. Bill in equity for specific performance, or in the alternative to refund money paid. Wiltbank, J., filed the following opinion: FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. On February 22, 1899, the defendant, William H. Christ-man, and his sister, Emily E. Christman, were the owners in fee of all that certain lot or piece of ground, with the brick messuage or tenement thereon erected,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
All of the appellant’s numerous assignments of error, except one, are to the judge’s findings or refusals to find facts. It is sufficient to say that the judge was amply sustained by evidence, and we see no reason to question his conclusions.
The remaining assignment to the conclusions of law cannot be sustained. The judge found that the plaintiff bought in reliance on a warranty or express representation as to the depth of the lot, which takes the case out of the rule of caveat emptor.
J udgment affirmed.
2Cited by9 opinions
- ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. GasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Radnor Building & Loan Ass'n v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Ohlbaum v. MayerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Landreth v. HowellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Lyons v. LyonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.