Gallagher v. Boden

3 A. 17, 1 Sadler 265, 17 Week. No. 235, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 601
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 4, 1886·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Evidence was clearly admissible to prove that the plaintiff bought with full knowledge that the street had been located, and necessarily understood its effect on the lot he was purchasing.

The deed tendered was for the 60 feet front as specified. The contract was for “about 200” in depth. It is only 195 feet. Hnder all the facts of the case, that is not such a deficiency as to relieve the purchaser from his contract. Lie knew quite as much in regard to the size and location of the lot as the vendor did, and that the damages would accrue to him when the street should be opened.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gallagher v. Boden, 3 A. 17, 1 Sadler 265, 17 Week. No. 235, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 601 (Pa. 1886).

3 A. 17 (Gallagher v. Boden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Green v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
149 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (N.D. Illinois, 2016)
Lee v. United States
196 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (Court of International Trade, 2002)
In Re KNIGHTSBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CO. INC.
884 F.2d 145 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)
ICON Group, Inc. v. Mahogany Run Development Corp.
829 F.2d 473 (Third Circuit, 1987)