McClintock v. South Penn Oil Co.

Citations

• 146 Pa. 144
• 23 A. 211
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1208

Syllabus

<p>1. Whether the doctrine of mutuality as affecting the specific enforcement of contracts, has any proper place in cases arising under the statute of frauds, is a vexed question on which our decisions are not in harmony, and are badly in need of review; see Tripp v. Bishop, 56 Pa. 424; Meason v. Kaine, 63 Pa. 335; Sands v. Arthur, 84 Pa. 479; and the comment thereon in Reed on Stat. of Frauds, § 367 : Per Mr. Justice Mitchell.</p> <p>2. A contract for the sale of real estate, signed for the vendor by an agent not having written authority to sign, will have the same force and effect, under the statute of frauds, § 1, act of March 21, 1772, 1 Sm. L. 389, when ratified in writing by the vendor, as though signed by the agent in pursuance of lawful authority by writing; provided, the vendee has not repudiated it before such ratification.</p> <p>(as) Without written authority, the agent of an equitable owner of land signed for his principal an agreement to transfer to another, for a specified consideration, the contract under which the principal held the land. Afterwards, the principal, at the request of the other party, executed a formal assignment written on the same sheet of paper with the agreement to transfer, and specifying the same consideration:</p> <p>3. The assignment operated as a written ratification of the agreement ex-ecuteddby the agent, and took it out of the operation of the statute of frauds, notwithstanding the purchaser under said agreement refused to accept the assignment when afterwards tendered to him. The enforcement of the contract violated neither the letter nor the policy of the statute, all its objects having been secured.</p> <p>4. The plaintiff, holding a contract for the purchase of land, sold it to the defendant by an executory agreement for a specified price. The defendant refused to take and pay for it, and it became forfeited by the nonpayment to plaintiff’s vendor of money falling due on it after such refusal. Such non-payment being th