Clapp v. Hoffman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Clapp v. Hoffman, 159 Pa. 531 (Pa. 1894)
28 A. 362; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 887
Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett

Clapp v. Hoffman

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The propriety and correctness of the learned master’s recommendation, that the bill in this case be dismissed, are amply vindicated in his report. The sale of the ground rent in question was fully executed, by delivery of deed therefor and payment in full of the consideration money, more than two years and a half before the bill was filed. There was no intentional misrepresentation as to the quality of the ground rent, nor any fraud in the procurement or in the consummation of the sale thereof. The vendee had ample time and opportunity, before accepting the deed and paying the purchase money, to have ascertained whether the ground rent was irredeemable or not. He satisfied himself as to the goodness of the title, and in the same manner he might have been fully advised as to the quality of the rent. Moreover, the relief prayed for would not have restored the parties to their original position. But it is not our purpose to discuss the questions presented by the record. They have been satisfactorily disposed of by the learned master, and for reasons given in his report we think neither of the specifications of error should be sustained.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.

Reference

Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Sale — Mistake—Equity— Ground rents. Defendant owned a ground rent which she thought was irredeemable.' She gave it to her son to deliver to an auctioneer to be sold. The son believing the ground rent to be irredeemable, so represented it to the auctioneer, and it was advertised and sold as irredeemable. Plaintiff’s decedent bought the ground rent as an irredeemable one, relying upon defendant’s representations. After the purchase plaintiff took the title papers to a title company who issued a title policy of insurance in which the ground rent was insured as being irredeemable. Settlement was then made and the money was received and afterwards invested by defendant. Held, that plaintiff had no standing in equity to have the contract of sale set aside.