Peifer v. Landis
1 Watts 392
Opinion
There is no pretence of parol performance here, because there is no pretence of delivery of possession in pursuance of the contract; which is essential. The evidence, therefore, was properly rejected.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Peifer v. Landis, 1 Watts 392 (Pa. 1833).
1 Watts 392 (Peifer v. Landis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hertzog v. Hertzog's Administrator
34 Pa. 418 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1859)
Allen's Estate
1 Watts & Serg. 383 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1841)
M'Kee v. Phillips
9 Watts 85 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1839)
Ensign v. Kellogg
21 Mass. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1826)