Wolf v. Christman
51 A. 1102, 202 Pa. 475, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 549
Opinion
All of the appellant’s numerous assignments of error, except one, are to the judge’s findings or refusals to find facts. It is sufficient to say that the judge was amply sustained by evidence, and we see no reason to question his conclusions.
The remaining assignment to the conclusions of law cannot be sustained. The judge found that the plaintiff bought in reliance on a warranty or express representation as to the depth of the lot, which takes the case out of the rule of caveat emptor.
J udgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wolf v. Christman, 51 A. 1102, 202 Pa. 475, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 549 (Pa. 1902).
51 A. 1102 (Wolf v. Christman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. Gaster
288 A.2d 771 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Richardson v. Walsh
23 Pa. D. & C.2d 240 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1960)
Miller v. Red Lion Cemetery Ass'n
174 A. 105 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Ohlbaum v. Mayer
131 A. 858 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Radnor Building & Loan Ass'n v. Scott
120 A. 804 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Penn Cigar Co. v. Friedberg
74 Pa. Super. 554 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Landreth v. Howell
24 Pa. Super. 210 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Lyons v. Lyons
56 A. 56 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)