Schuey v. Schaeffer
Schuey v. Schaeffer
Opinion of the Court
schuey’s appeal.
The learned master’s findings of fact were all approved by the court below, except the finding that the purchase money was fully paid. An examination of the evidence, master’s report, and very elaborate opinion of the learned judge of the Common Pleas, has satisfied us that the latter was correct in finding that the purchase money was not actually paid to the appellee.
It is unnecessary to refer specially to the facts upon which the decree for specific performance is based. They are fully presented in the report of the master and opinion of the learned judge. In view of all the facts, the decree is just and equitable, and should not be disturbed.
SCHAEFFER’S APPEAL.
For reasons briefly suggested in opinion disposing of Schuey’s Appeal, we think the decree should not be disturbed. The facts in connection with the non-payment of the purchase money, as found by the court below, ought not to operate as a rescission of the parol contract. The purchase money was never actually paid, and it was the fault of the appellee that it was not settled in other transactions between the parties. We are unable to see that appellant has any just reason to complain.
Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at the costs of appellant.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- JOHN G. SCHUEY v. D. W. SCHAEFFER
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (а) In a proceeding by bill for specific performance of a parol contract for the sale of land, it was found upon sufficient evidence that the contract had been entered into, possession taken by the plaintiff in pursuance thereof, and valuable improvements made by him upon the land. (б) It was also found that the purchase money for the land was $100, payable in six years in cash or coal; that, though coal had been delivered, the purchase money had not been settled in full, yet the possession taken had been kept continuously for 14 years, to the date of the filing of the bill. 1. In such case, the fact that the purchase money was not settled in other transactions between the parties being the fault of the defendant, it was not error to decree specific performance, a deed to be executed and delivered to the plaintiff upon payment of the purchase money due.