Wingert v. Stone

21 A. 812, 142 Pa. 258, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 732
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County
DecidedMay 4, 1891
DocketNo. 66
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 A. 812 (Wingert v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wingert v. Stone, 21 A. 812, 142 Pa. 258, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 732 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1891).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This was a scire facias upon a mechanics’ lien. At the time the work was done and the materials furnished for the erection of the house in controversy, the equitable title was in Nicholas Stone, the defendant, under articles of agreement. He had paid a portion of the purchase money. After the house was erected, Stone became dissatisfied with his purchase, and surrendered the article of agreement to Mr. Knarr, his vendor; or in his own words, “ threw it up,” and refused to pay any more money under it. Some time after this, Mrs. Stone, his wife, went to Mr. Knarr, and procured from him an agreement for the sale of the lot to her, upon which agreement she made some payments of the purchase money, and was also allowed a credit for what had previously been paid by her husband. Her contention is that the lien did not attach to her interest in the property.

This may be appropriately termed a new way to get a house without paying for it. If we concede that a lien filed against an equitable estate falls with the destruction of said estate, either by a judicial proceeding, or by a merger of the equitable and legal titles, yet the law will not recognize such a summary mode of getting rid of the equitable title. The title to real estate cannot be tossed about from hand to hand like a base-ball. Stone could not have conveyed his equitable title to his wife, [263]*263so as to defeat the mechanics’ lien which had already fastened upon the property. Much less could he do so by merely throwing up the agreement without a reconveyance to Mr. Knarr. It was a clumsy device, which the law does not favor.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Alaska Plumbing Co. v. Bingham
115 P. 159 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)
Bolz v. Stuhl
4 Pa. Super. 52 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 A. 812, 142 Pa. 258, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wingert-v-stone-pactcomplclearf-1891.