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.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Brown,
On October 1, 1912, Sarah A. Potter, the appellee, entered into an agreement, in writing, to sell a farm to Ida Grimm, the appellant. The puchase price fixed in the agreement was $2,000, but, as a matter of fact, the vendor was to get $3,000 for the property. This was the price she asked for it, and the inducement which led her to execute the written agreement was a promise made to her by the appellant, through an authorized agent, to pay, in addition to the $2,000, such sum as, added to land damages to be awarded to her for the location of a public road…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Irvin v. Irvin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County1891
- Croyle v. Cambria Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Greenawalt v. KohneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Faux v. FitlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cridge's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Thompson v. SchochSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Excelsior Saving Fund & Loan Ass'n v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Dixon v. MinogueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Hertzog v. LeonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.