Weizer v. J. E. Weyman Construction Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Weizer v. J. E. Weyman Construction Corp.

197 A.2d 47, 413 Pa. 294, 1964 Pa. LEXIS 671

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 7, 1964

DocketAppeal, No. 245

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.2d 47 (Weizer v. J. E. Weyman Construction Corp.) 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

Weizer v. J. E. Weyman Construction Corp., 197 A.2d 47, 413 Pa. 294, 1964 Pa. LEXIS 671 (Pa. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

This case also points up the problem which we raised in Conley-Irwin Corp. v. Reiter, 413 Pa. 213, 196 A. 2d 300 (1964). Here, appellees brought this action in equity to recover payments made to appellant under a real estate purchase agreement alleging failure of appellant to comply with the agreement. After the pleadings had been filed plaintiff-appellees moved, under Buie 1034 of Pa. R. C. P. applicable to actions of assumpsit, for judgment on the pleadings which the lower court granted and from which judgment appellant takes this appeal.

During argument and in the appellees’ history of the case it was indicated that plaintiff-appellees permitted defendant-appellant to sell the property to another buyer. Appellant no longer owns the property. We gather from statements of counsel that the arrangements made by appellees and appellant in the disposition of the property have eliminated substantial contentions from this litigation.

[296]*296Under those circumstances, we have not made the issue of equity’s apparent lack of jurisdiction the basis for our decision. Without recourse to procedural defects we affirm the action of the lower court on the merits. As in Conley-Irwin Corp. v. Reiter, we again caution that this litigation should not be considered as a precedent for recourse to equity under facts such as these.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

This case also points up the problem which we raised in Conley-Irwin Corp. v. Reiter, 413 Pa. 213, 196 A. 2d 300 (1964). Here, appellees brought this action in equity to recover payments made to appellant under a real estate purchase agreement alleging failure of appellant to comply with the agreement. After the pleadings had been filed plaintiff-appellees moved, under Buie 1034 of Pa. R. C. P. applicable to actions of assumpsit, for judgment on the pleadings which the lower court granted and from which judgment appellant takes this appeal.

During argument and in the appellees’ history of the case it was indicated that plaintiff-appellees permitted defendant-appellant to sell the property to another buyer. Appellant no longer owns the property. We gather from statements of counsel that the arrangements made by appellees and appellant in the disposition of the property have eliminated substantial contentions from this litigation.

[296]*296Under those circumstances, we have not made the issue of equity’s apparent lack of jurisdiction the basis for our decision. Without recourse to procedural defects we affirm the action of the lower court on the merits. As in Conley-Irwin Corp. v. Reiter, we again caution that this litigation should not be considered as a precedent for recourse to equity under facts such as these.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.2d 47, 413 Pa. 294, 1964 Pa. LEXIS 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weizer-v-j-e-weyman-construction-corp-pa-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack