Schriver v. Eckenrode
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Adams county: Of May Term 1880, No. 90. Assumpsit by George I. Schriver against Elijah Eckenrode to recover the value of the difference between the represented and the actual value of certain land sold by the assignee of defendant to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Adams county: Of May Term 1880, No. 90. Assumpsit by George I. Schriver against Elijah Eckenrode to recover the value of the difference between the represented and the actual value of certain land sold by the assignee of defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff declared upon a contract of guarantee by the defendant, that the tract of land in dispute, purchased by plaintiff from defendant’s assignee for the benefit of creditors, contained one hundred and forty-four acres, while in fact it contained only one hundred and thirty-two acres and a fraction. In…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
If the court ordered the nonsuit, in this case, under the impression that the defendant’s parol guaranty could not be enforced because of the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries it made a mistake. In this state it is well-settled law that an action will lie upon parol contracts concerning lands, though they be such that specific performance of them will not be enforced. Such is the doctrine of Thompson v. Shepler, 22 P. F. Smith 160, and of Frederick v. Campbell, 13 S. & R. 136. The latter ease holding that, in an action upon a bond for purchase-money, parol evidence was admissible to show that…
2Cited by1 opinion
- International Electronics Co. v. N. S. T. Metal Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950