Fendick v. Lloyd
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, March T., 1912, by defendants, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., June T., 1911, No. 358, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Jacob Fendick v. Mary A. Lloyd and Samuel J. Lloyd. Rule for judgment. The opinion of the Superior Court states the facts. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The plaintiff and defendants entered into a written contract, by the terms of which the latter agreed to convey to the former a good title to certain real estate, in consideration of the payment of a sum of money therein designated. At the execution of the contract the plaintiff paid over the hand money agreed on, to wit, $500. *437When the defendants tendered their deed and demanded the balance of the purchase money, the plaintiff refused to accept the deed or pay the money on the ground that the defendants were unable to convey a marketable title and therefore the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. WatermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Lloyd v. FendickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911