McKuen v. Serody
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 112, Jan. T., 1921, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1920, No. 5692, dismissing bill in equity, in case of E. F. McKuen v. Michael Serody and Samuel Serody, copartners, trading as Serody & Serody, and R. Madway. Bill in equity for specific performance. Before Ferguson, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. The court dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, among others, was decree, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schaffer,
Plaintiff filed a bill in equity against defendants for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate; defendants demurred, the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed; plaintiff has appealed.
The agreement, dated Jan. 30, 1920, acknowledged receipt of part of the consideration money and provided for payment of the balance in cash at the time of settlement, which it was stipulated should take place on or before February 24,1920; it further provided, the “parties hereby bind themselves......for the faithful performance of the above agreement…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Doughty v. CooneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
3Cited by7 opinions
- Phaff v. GernerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Wimer v. WagnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Salvatore v. TraceNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1969
- Levy's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Piacentino v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.