Potter v. Grimm
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 213, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Lawrence Co., Dec. T., 1913, No. 44, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Sarah A. Potter v. Ida Grimm-. Assumpsit on a contract for the sale of land. Before Porter, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict for plaintiff for |2,583.33 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were rulings on evidence, instructions to the jury and the entry of judgment on the verdict.
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart:
In Irvin v. Irvin, 142 Pa. 271, Paxson, C. J., uses this language:
*447“I know of no decided case and no principle of law which permits an oral contract, made at the same time with a written contract, under seal, and purposely omitted thferefrom, to be set up not only to contradict but to destroy it. The two agreements cannot possibly stand together; one or other must fall. When parties without fraud or mistake have put their engagéments in writing, that is not only the best, but the sole evidence of their agreement.” This indicates sufficiently the ground…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Irvin v. Irvin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County1891
- Croyle v. Cambria Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Fulton v. HoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Renshaw v. GansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Weaver v. WoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.