Tick v. Sholin
This text of 207 A.2d 792 (Tick v. Sholin) 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.
Opinion
Opinion
This action in equity was instituted by the plaintiffs, Jack Tick and Sidney Tick, against the defendant, Frances Sholin, seeking partition of certain real estate devised to the parties by the will of their mother.
Before appellant filed her answer, the parties entered into a written agreement for the sale by plaintiffs to defendant-appellant of their interest in the property. Defendant maintains that since the plaintiffs breached the sales agreement the equity action cannot be pursued.
The chancellor determined that plaintiffs were entitled to a decree directing partition, which decree was affirmed by the court en banc. We agree with the determination of the chancellor that the agreement to purchase was not fully performed by the defendant and that the plaintiffs properly rescinded the agree[567]*567ment, thus permitting them to pursue the partition action. The order of partition was properly decreed.
Decree affirmed at appellant’s cost.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
207 A.2d 792, 417 Pa. 565, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tick-v-sholin-pa-1965.