Doughty v. Cooney

109 A. 619, 266 Pa. 337, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 567
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 2, 1920
DocketAppeal, No. 148,
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 109 A. 619 (Doughty v. Cooney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doughty v. Cooney, 109 A. 619, 266 Pa. 337, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 567 (Pa. 1920).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant’s bill is for the specific performance of two contracts for the sale of real estate which he had agreed to purchase from the appellees. Each agreement provides that time was of its essence. The case was disposed of below on bill and answer, an averment in the latter being that the plaintiff had not undertaken to perform within the time fixed for performance, and there is no allegation in the bill that the defendants had waived the time within which the contracts were to be performed. “When parties have deliberately by their agreements or covenants fixed a time for the performance of an act, a court of equity will be very cautious how it interferes in disregard of it, and thus in effect change the contract which the parties have made”: Vankirk v. Patterson, 201 Pa. 90.

Appeal dismissed and decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.

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

Related

Michael and Linda, LLC v. Smith, R.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2019
Miner v. Bobinis
63 Pa. D. & C.2d 668 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1973)
Warner Co. v. MacMullen
112 A.2d 74 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1955)
Wasserman v. Steinman
15 Pa. D. & C. 306 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1931)
Montgomery v. Mahjoubian
3 Pa. D. & C. 833 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1923)
Hoffman v. Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Reading
117 A. 917 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Levy's Estate
116 A. 666 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Piacentino v. Young
116 A. 407 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
McKuen v. Serody
112 A. 460 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
Mansfield v. Redding
112 A. 437 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 A. 619, 266 Pa. 337, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doughty-v-cooney-pa-1920.