McKibben v. Doyle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 71, July T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Pliila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 616, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit to recover money paid under an alleged mistake ■of fact. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for plaintiffs. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $57.70. Defendant .appealed. JError assigned was above instruction.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The defendant, Catharine Doyle, claiming to own the party wall between her premises, No. 2009 Pepper St., and the adjoining premises, No. 2011 Pepper St., obtained an injunction restraining the owner of No. 2011 from using the wall without making compensation therefor. After the injunction had issued the lot No. 2011 with the unfinished building was sold at sheriff’s sale and purchased by Thomas J. Rose, who conveyed it to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, desiring to complete the building, tendered to the defendant the price of the party wall. She declined to receive…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Youngstown Mines Corp. v. ProutSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Kunkel v. KunkelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- GAF CORPORATION v. Amchem Products, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
- Betta v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Smith v. Capital Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.