Rayman v. Klare

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Rayman v. Klare

89 A. 591, 242 Pa. 448, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 906

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 8, 1913

DocketAppeal, No. 232

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A. 591 (Rayman v. Klare) 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

Rayman v. Klare, 89 A. 591, 242 Pa. 448, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 906 (Pa. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

This action was to recover the hand money paid the defendants upon the execution of an agreement by them to sell to the plaintiff certain real estate. By the terms of the agreement the defendants were to convey to the plaintiff the property in question in fee simple, free from all encumbrances. The coal under the land had been sold by a prior owner with the right to mine by such means as might be necessary, and to haul through thé mine opened coal from mines that might be opened on other land; to maintain an air shaft and haul roads and to dump waste on the surface. The deed tendered by the defendants and refused by the plaintiff was subject to these coal and mining rights. It is too clear to admit of argument that the title tendered was not of the whole thing sold, and that it was subject to rights previously granted which made it not free of encumbrance. A verdict was properly directed for the plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam,

This action was to recover the hand money paid the defendants upon the execution of an agreement by them to sell to the plaintiff certain real estate. By the terms of the agreement the defendants were to convey to the plaintiff the property in question in fee simple, free from all encumbrances. The coal under the land had been sold by a prior owner with the right to mine by such means as might be necessary, and to haul through thé mine opened coal from mines that might be opened on other land; to maintain an air shaft and haul roads and to dump waste on the surface. The deed tendered by the defendants and refused by the plaintiff was subject to these coal and mining rights. It is too clear to admit of argument that the title tendered was not of the whole thing sold, and that it was subject to rights previously granted which made it not free of encumbrance. A verdict was properly directed for the plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A. 591, 242 Pa. 448, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rayman-v-klare-pa-1913.