Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WEIZER v. J. E. WEYMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP. (01/07/64)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


January 7, 1964

WEIZER
v.
J. E. WEYMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., APPELLANT.

Appeal, No. 245, Jan. T., 1963, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1962, No. 5160, in case of Elizabeth Weizer, administratrix of estate of Paul Weizer, and Elizabeth Weizer in her own right v. J. E. Weyman Construction Corp. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused February 10, 1964.

COUNSEL

Morton B. Wapner, for appellant.

Samuel Moonblatt, with him Berk, Masino and Moonblatt, for appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Cohen

[ 413 Pa. Page 295]

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 Rule 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.

[ 413 Pa. Page 296]

Under 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.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS concurs in the result.

Disposition

Judgment affirmed.

19640107

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.