Wolf v. Christman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 (Pa. 1902)
51 A. 1102; 1902 Pa. LEXIS 549
Brown, Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter
Wolf v. Christman
Opinion of the Court
All of the appellant’s numerous assignments of error, except one, are to the judge’s findings or refusals to find facts. It is sufficient to say that the judge was amply sustained by evidence, and we see no reason to question his conclusions.
The remaining assignment to the conclusions of law cannot be sustained. The judge found that the plaintiff bought in reliance on a warranty or express representation as to the depth of the lot, which takes the case out of the rule of caveat emptor.
J udgment affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 9 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Equity — Equity practice — Finding of fact. Findings of fact by a trial judge in an equity case based on sufficient evidence will not be reversed by the appellate court except for clear error. Vendor and vendee — Warranty—Express representation — Caveat emptor. Where the vendee of a lot buys in reliance on a warranty or express representation by the vendor as to the depth of the lot, he is not within the rule of caveat emptor.