Borie v. Satterthwaite

Citations

• 180 Pa. 542
• 37 A. 102
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 959

Syllabus

<p>Equity— Vendor and vendee — Specific performance — Gloud on title— Fraud — Principal and agent.</p> <p>On a bill in equity for specific performance and to remove a cloud upon title it appeared that S. had employed K. as an agent to sell the land, and that K. had induced the plaintiffs to purchase it. An agreement in writing was executed by S. of the one part and by K. for the plaintiffs, of the other part. K. signed the paper for the plaintiffs under the .mistaken idea that both parties must sign in order to make the contract mutually binding between them. The agreement was acknowledged and recorded, and the first instalment of purchase money was paid by plaintiffs and received by S. A few days afterwards S. conveyed the land to his children who have been parties defendant with him. This was done in pursuance of an alleged pfirol agreement previously made between S. and his children. It was averred that S.’s wife had bequeathed a sum of money to the children, which she liad previously loaned or given to her husband, and that the husband had agreed to hold the property in controversy to the use of the children, subject to existing incumbrances and the payment of the other debts of S. The price paid by the plaintiffs was not inadequate, and there were no circumstances of imposition or advantage taken of S. Held, (1) that the plaintiffs had a standing to enforce the agreement signed by K. on their behalf; (2) that in making the agreement K. acted for the vendor and not for the plaintiffs; (8) that there was no equity on the part of S. or Ms children sufficient to defeat the plaintiffs’ rights.</p>