Plauschinat v. Shapiro

Citations

• 70 Pa. Super. 606
• 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 18

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Specific performance — Sale of business and good will— Jurisdiction.</p> <p>A bill in equity for the specific performance of an alleged contract to convey a business, and to refrain from engaging in the same business for five years within a certain district, will not be sustained where it appears that the agreement sued on was a receipt for a portion of the purchase money containing a provision that “the contract to purchase to be evidenced by a written agreement to be executed by myself with the said” plaintiff, naming him, and where there is nothing to show that defendant’s business was the only one which might be bought, which would answer plaintiff’s purpose.</p> <p>The effect of the receipt was to leave uncertain what the parties would ultimately agree upon and showed that the agreement alleged was not complete in itself, but was a mere aim looking to the future adjustment of details, such as were held incapable of specific performance in Wistar’s Appeal, 80 Pa. 484.</p> <p>The ground for equitable jurisdiction in such a case is some peculiar attribute of the property to be conveyed, making it practically impossible to replace in the open market.</p>