Adams v. Williams

2 Watts & Serg. 227
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1841·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Rogers, J.

In Robb v. Montgomery, (20 Johns. 20), the word when, and in Champion v. White, (5 Cow. 509), on were held dependent covenants. There is no substantial difference between these words and the word upon. In a contract where money is payable in instalments, and it is agreed that a deed shall be given, when, on, or upon payment of the whole amount of the purchase money, it is the fair import of the terms, that the delivery of the deed is precedent to the payment of the money. The ancient cases went on subtle grounds, but it is now settled that whether covenants be dependent or independent, is a question of intention. On the whole case, we are of opinion that the covenants are dependent, and consequently that a deed should have been tendered before the commencement of the suit.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams v. Williams, 2 Watts & Serg. 227 (Pa. 1841).

2 Watts & Serg. 227 (Adams v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walsh v. Powell
76 Pa. D. & C. 108 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1951)
Heights Land Co. v. Swengel's Estate
179 A. 431 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Barnes v. Rea
68 A. 836 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Hooker v. Bryan.
53 S.E. 130 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Niagara F. Ins. v. Fidelity Co.
16 A. 790 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1889)
Irvin v. Bleakley
67 Pa. 24 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1871)
Womrath v. McCormick
51 Pa. 504 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1866)
Keeler & Co. v. Schmertz
46 Pa. 135 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1863)
Roach v. Dickinsons
9 Va. 154 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1852)