Affrime v. Mandel

Citations

• 267 Pa. 387

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Bill—Specific performance — Beal estate — Part owners —Parties, interests not disclosed — Performance pro tanto — Statute of frauds — Minors’ interests.</p> <p>1. Where two adult owners of undivided interests in a property belonging to a decedent’s estate, enter into a contract in writing, in which they recite themselves as agents for the estate of decedent, and by which they agree to sell the real estate in its entirety “subject to the approval of the orphans’ court, proceedings to be commenced and proceeded with to final conclusion as soon as possible,” and it appears that there were minors’ interests, and also that there was another adult owner, not mentioned in the agreement, for whom the signers had no apparent written authority to act, and that the proceedings in the orphans’ court had not been prosecuted, specific performance cannot be enforced against the two signers of the agreement for their respective interests, which are not disclosed, nor against the third adult owner made a party to the bill, but not a party to the agreement, it not being averred that the parties who executed the agreement had written authority to act for the third adult owner.</p> <p>2. In such case, the statute of frauds stand in the way of plaintiffs in the bill, so far as the third adult owner is concerned.</p> <p>3. Defendants’ failure to press the orphans’ court proceedings, to final disposition, may or may not give ground for an action against .them at law for damages, but it does not have the effect of entitling plaintiff to a decree in equity for the carrying out of an arrangement different entirely from that contemplated by the agreement between the parties.</p>