Sherman v. Herr
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 353, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Lebanon Co., Equity Docket, 1906, Ho. 9, on bill in equity in case of Ray T. Sherman v. Rudolph F. Herr. Bill in equity for specific performance. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was decree enforcing specific performance.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
The court below found the following contract to have been entered into by the parties : “ Ray T. Sherman, the plaintiff, and R. F. Herr, the defendant, on August 20, 1906, mutually and verbally agreed with each other- to procure by purchase the 150 shares of stock of A. G-. Stauffer and the 150 shares of stock of W. A. Wengert in said Calcite Quarry Company for their mutual benefit, the purchase to be made by either of them, as opportunity might offer, and after being so purchased the said shares were to be equally divided between them, each paying one-half of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- New England Trust Co. v. AbbottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.'s AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Northern Central Railway Co. v. WalworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Fitzsimmons v. LindsaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Rankin v. PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Driebe v. Fort Penn Realty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Schuster v. LargmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Castle v. CohenDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1987
- Armstrong v. StifflerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
- Nason v. BarrettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.