Batley v. Foerderer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 370, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dee. T., 1893, No. 462, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, in assumpsit for purchase money of real estate.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 370, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dee. T., 1893, No. 462, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, in assumpsit for purchase money of real estate. From the record it appeared that, on June 2, 1893, plaintiff and defendant, Thomas Batley and Robert H. Foerderer, entered into an agreement under seal by which the former agreed to sell and convey, and the latter to purchase, a lot of ground on the east side of Thirty-third street, 68 feet…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Stebbett,
This action, on the sealed contract between the parties for the sale and purchase of the lot described therein, was brought to recover the residue of purchase money, $51,966.66, with interest from July 5, 1893.
The facts, as claimed by plaintiff, are fully set forth in his statement, to which are appended, and made part thereof, copies of the two contracts and deed therein referred tó. As specified in the original contract, the title to said lot was “ to be good and marketable and clear of all incumbrances.” In addition to the hand-money, $1,000, a payment…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Westerlund v. Black Bear Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
- McKenrick v. Savings BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
- Black v. American International Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Wheeler v. SullivanSupreme Court of Florida · 1925
- Nimlet's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.