Legal Opinion

Paralka Et Ux. v. Grummel Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 4, 1924No. Appeal, 179PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fbazer,

Defendants, tenants by entireties, entered into an agreement, dated September 26,1922, to sell to plaintiffs the premises No. 3352 Salmon Street, Philadelphia, the contract providing, inter alia, for performance within ninety days from date, “time to be of the essence of the agreement unless extended by mutual consent, in writing indorsed hereon,” possession to be given “at the date of settlement.” Settlement was not made within ninety days, and the evidence is conflicting as to what took place between the parties in connection with the extension of the time for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Irvin v. BleakleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
  2. Loughney v. QuigleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Vankirk v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Wilson v. King of Prussia Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Erkess v. EisenthalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Unatin 7-Up Co., Inc. v. SolomonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  4. Triton Realty Co. v. FriemanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
  5. Williams Et Ux. v. Barbaretta Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API