Legal Opinion

Long v. Daylor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 27, 1937No. Appeal, 12PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Barnes,

The plaintiff sued in assumpsit for damages, alleging a breach of a written contract, for the sale to him, of the premises known as 1930 N. Third Street, Harrisburg. Title to the premises was in defendant Shutter. The co-defendant Daylor was Shutter’s agent in negotiating the sale, and apparently had some interest in the property.

The facts in reference to the terms of payment of the purchase price for the property are somewhat confusing. It appears from the agreement dated August 7, 1933, that the full consideration was $6,250. Plaintiff agreed to assume an…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Siegfried v. BoydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  2. Reznor Manufacturing Co. v. Bessemer & Lake Erie RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  3. Bennett v. ErwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Commonwealth v. Schuylkill Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. McGunnegle v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Williams v. Lumbermen's InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Evans v. MoffatSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Matosantos Commercial Corp. v. Applebee's International, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1999
  4. Matosantos Commercial Corp. v. Applebee's International, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1999
  5. Evans v. MoffatSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API