Schoonover v. Ralston
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 76, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Feb. T., 1900, No. 256, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of B. D. Schoonover, Administrator of Joseph Potter, v. Alexander Ralston. Ejectment for land in Cooper township. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Pouter, J.,
Joseph Potter and Alexander Ralston, on March 20, 1890, entered into an article of agreement in writing under the provisions of which the former agreed to sell and convey by “ a clear and lawful deed,” to the latter a tract of land containing one hundred and twenty-seven acres, more or less ; Ralston agreeing to pay for the property the sum of $900, one half to be paid the first day of May, 1890, and the other half the first day of May, 1891; the conveyance of the property to be made after the last payment. Joseph Potter died intestate in the month of August, 1891, and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Walker v. FranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Blygh v. SamsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Appeal of WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- West Hickory Mining Ass'n v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
- Gans v. RenshawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wurster v. PetersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Wurster v. PetersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983