Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1890

Sylvester v. Born

Sylvester v. Born
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided February 24, 1890 · Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams
132 Pa. 467; 19 A. 337; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 840

Sylvester v. Born

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The undisputed facts of this case, clearly stated in the report *479of tlie learned master, justly entitled the plaintiff below to the decree of specific performance from which this appeal was taken. Neither of the specifications of error is sustained.

Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at the costs of appellants.

Concurring Opinion

Opinion concurring,

Mr. Justice Mitchell:

The agreement was entirely one sided, as it tied up the appellants’ title, and yet allowed the appellee to repudiate the purchase without further liability than the mere forfeiture of the $50 deposit money. I am of opinion that time is of the essence of such a contract, and that a purchaser ought not to be permitted to enforce it in equity after the stipulated period.

The evidence in this case, however, shows that appellant waived the limitation as to time, and that his subsequent refusal to convey was au after-thought growing out of a dispute on another matter. On this ground, I concur in affirming the decree.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.