Notley v. Shoemaker

Citations

• 25 Pa. Super. 584
• 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 118

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Optional agreement — Sale of minerals.</p> <p>On the day that a duly recorded option for the sale of minerals was to expire a tender of the purchase price was made, a deed demanded, but the demand was not complied with. Shortly thereafter the vendor tendered a general warranty deed in compliance with the requirements of the contract. This was rejected because of ejectment proceedings which had been instituted by a third party and were then pending. Subsequently the owner of the option assigned it to a third person. At the time of the assignment the owner of the option stated to the assignee that he did not claim, to have any title to the property. Held, that the assignment of the option passed no interest to the assignee.</p> <p>In the above case the six judges who heard the case being equally divided in opinion, the decree of the lower court was affirmed.</p>