Painter v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Painter v. Wilson, 197 Pa. 434 (Pa. 1900)
47 A. 349; 1900 Pa. LEXIS 758
Brown, Fell, McCollum, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter
Painter v. Wilson
Opinion of the Court
In this case the plaintiff moved for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and a rule to show cause was granted. The motion for judgment was argued on December 21, 1899, and the rule to show cause was discharged. The learned court below in a clear and comprehensive opinion showed that the affidavit was sufficient to prevent judgment. In this conclusion we all concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Vendor and vendee—Marketable title—Actionfor purchase money—Ejectment. In an action to recover the balance of purchase money for land, which balance was agreed to be paid when the title should be thoroughly tested and proven to be good and perfect, an affidavit of defense is sufficient which alleges that the vendees brought an action of ejectment to test the title to the land, that the defendants in the ejectment suit filed a disclaimer to about one seventh of the land, that the vendees secured a verdict, which on appeal was reversed by the Supreme Court with a new venire, and that the record in the ejectment suit showed that there was nothing to prevent the defendants in that suit from showing on another trial new or additional facts wholly destructive of the title recognized by the Supreme Court. Vendor and vendee—Difference in quantity of land—Equity. Where there is a great difference between the quantity of land sold and the quantity of land to which the vendor had title, equity will relieve the vendee from payment of the whole amount of the purchase money.