Summary
In Prager, the purchaser did not claim or seek to offer evidence to show that the description provided in the agreement, particularly the description of the parcel to be excluded from the total owned by the seller, was sufficiently definite to satisfy the statute of frauds.
Summary of this case from Yinger v. SpringerOpinion
Submitted March 17, 1960.
April 19, 1960.
Equity — Contracts — Specific performance — Statute of Frauds — Description of Land — Sufficiency — Receipt for down payment — Practice — Preliminary objections.
In this action in equity for specific performance by the alleged purchaser under an oral contract of certain farm land in which it appeared in the complaint that the only memorandum signed by the owner was a dated receipt for $20 "deposit on 61 acres more or less total $8000 price on farm", it was Held that (1) the receipt was not a sufficient writing to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds of March 21, 1772, 1 Sm. L. 389, § 1, and (2) the question of the Statute of Frauds was properly raised on preliminary objections to the complaint.
Before JONES, C. J., BELL, MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 121, March T., 1960, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, June T., 1959, No. 2, in case of Ralph J. Prager v. Edna McAdam. Decree affirmed.
Same case in court below: 20 Pa. D. C.2d 314.
Equity.
Decree entered dismissing complaint, opinion by SHUMAKER P. J. Plaintiff appealed.
Carmen V. Marinaro, for appellant.
Lee C. McCandless, for appellee.
The decree dismissing the bill of complaint is affirmed at the appellant's costs on the opinion of President Judge SHUMAKER sustaining the defendant's preliminary objections to the complaint which shows on its face the insufficiency of the writing relied upon.
Decree affirmed at appellant's costs.