Piacentino v. Young
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 7, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1918, No. 5111, on bill in equity, in case of Louis Piacentino v. George W. Young. Bill in equity for specific performance. Exceptions to findings of Martin, P. J. The court in banc, Martin, P. J., participating, sustained the exceptions, and entered a decree for plaintiff, Monaghan, J., filing the opinion. Defendant appealed. Error assigned, among others, was decree, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
Piacentino entered into three contracts with Young, by which he agreed to buy five properties. In each instance, settlement was provided for within ninety days, but the transactions were not completed within the time fixed. After the expiration of the period determined upon, the purchase price of one house was paid, and the title transferred. As to the others, settlements were postponed by agreement, shown either by express words or conduct, until January 30, 1919. On that day, the parties met in the office of a trust company to close the negotiations. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McConville v. InghamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Cruzan v. CruzanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Vankirk v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Mansfield v. ReddingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Doughty v. CooneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Morgan's Home Equipment Corp. v. MartucciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- In re M.A.K.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Dougherty Distillery Warehouse Co. v. BinenstockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Watkins v. NeffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Iseman v. Joe F. Sherman Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.