Holthouse v. Rynd

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Holthouse v. Rynd

9 Sadler 193

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 3, 1888

DocketNo. 24, W. D.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 Sadler 193 (Holthouse v. Rynd) 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

Holthouse v. Rynd, 9 Sadler 193 (Pa. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The agreement of the 11th of July, 1885, was entirely too-indefinite to prevent the operation of the statute of frauds and perjuries; and the plaintiff’s bargain for the additional 1 foot of ground was purely oral, and, according to his own testimony, was never fully concluded. This condition of the evidence leaves us nothing to do but affirm the decree of the common pleas.

The appeal is dismissed and the decree affirmed, at tbe costs-of appellant.

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

Per Curiam:

The agreement of the 11th of July, 1885, was entirely too-indefinite to prevent the operation of the statute of frauds and perjuries; and the plaintiff’s bargain for the additional 1 foot of ground was purely oral, and, according to his own testimony, was never fully concluded. This condition of the evidence leaves us nothing to do but affirm the decree of the common pleas.

The appeal is dismissed and the decree affirmed, at tbe costs-of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Sadler 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holthouse-v-rynd-pa-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack