Martinek v. Kira

25 A.2d 721, 344 Pa. 676, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 451
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 14, 1942
DocketAppeal, 59
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 25 A.2d 721 (Martinek v. Kira) 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
Martinek v. Kira, 25 A.2d 721, 344 Pa. 676, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 451 (Pa. 1942).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This was an action of ejectment for a lot of ground in the Borough of Northampton. Defendant averred an equitable defense to the effect that by oral agreement plaintiff had agreed to convey the premises to him and that he had made improvements not compensable in damages. In such case the rule requires that defendant present a case on which, if he were plaintiff, a chancellor would decree specific performance. Marshall v. MacGregor, 314 Pa. 454, 171 A. 598. The evidence fell far short of that standard of proof, as the learned court pointed out in the opinion filed in entering judgment n. o. v. Our reading of the evidence convinces us that no other conclusion could have been sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Minahan v. Burgess
37 Pa. D. & C.3d 637 (Somerset County Court of Common Pleas, 1982)
Harbor Marine Company v. Nolan
366 A.2d 936 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
Hackett v. Olmsted
68 Pa. D. & C.2d 349 (Tioga County Court of Common Pleas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 A.2d 721, 344 Pa. 676, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinek-v-kira-pa-1942.