Legal Opinion

Martinek v. Kira

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 14, 1942No. Appeal, 59PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This was an action of ejectment for a lot of ground in the Borough of Northampton. Defendant averred an equitable defense to the effect that by oral agreement plaintiff had agreed to convey the premises to him and that he had made improvements not compensable in damages. In such case the rule requires that defendant present a case on which, if he were plaintiff, a chancellor would decree specific performance. Marshall v. MacGregor, 314 Pa. 454, 171 A. 598. The evidence fell far short of that standard of proof, as the learned court pointed out in the opinion filed in entering…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Marshall v. MacGregor Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Harbor Marine Company v. NolanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Hackett v. Olmsted, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Tioga County1974
  3. Minahan v. Burgess, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Somerset County1982

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

Powered by the Exa API