Connell ex rel. Ellison & Sons v. Shryock

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Connell ex rel. Ellison & Sons v. Shryock

31 A. 731, 167 Pa. 483, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 934

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 22, 1895·No. Appeal, No. 219·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

There is nothing in the contract on which this suit is based that could by any possibility entitle the legal plaintiff to maintain an action against the defendant for the residue of purchase money, under said contract, after the former had sold and con[487]*487veyed the same property to another person who paid him the full consideration for said conveyance. The learned 'judge' of the common pleas was therefore right in refusing plaintiff’s points for charge, and in directing a verdict for defendant. Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

There is nothing in the contract on which this suit is based that could by any possibility entitle the legal plaintiff to maintain an action against the defendant for the residue of purchase money, under said contract, after the former had sold and con[487]*487veyed the same property to another person who paid him the full consideration for said conveyance. The learned 'judge' of the common pleas was therefore right in refusing plaintiff’s points for charge, and in directing a verdict for defendant. Judgment affirmed.

Connell ex rel. Ellison & Sons v. Shryock, 31 A. 731, 167 Pa. 483, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 934 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

31 A. 731 (Connell ex rel. Ellison & Sons v. Shryock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related