Wolf v. Christman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Wolf v. Christman

51 A. 1102, 202 Pa. 475, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 549

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 19, 1902

DocketAppeal, No. 269

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 51 A. 1102 (Wolf v. Christman) 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

Wolf v. Christman, 51 A. 1102, 202 Pa. 475, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 549 (Pa. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

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

Per Curiam,

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A. 1102, 202 Pa. 475, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-christman-pa-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack