Sacks v. Schimmel

Citations

• 3 Pa. Super. 426
• 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 35

Syllabus

<p>Parol evidence — Reform of written contract — Fraud.</p> <p>The evidence of fraud relied upon for recovery independently of a written contract-, when such writing is in existence, must be of the same character as if relied upon to reform the contract.</p> <p>Actions — Distinction between deceit and contract.</p> <p>There is a clear distinction between an action based upon deceit, which is the inducing cause of a written agreement, and an action for damages under the agreement itself.</p> <p>Landlord and tenant — Representations by. landlord — Deceit—Parol evidence — Questionfor jury.</p> <p>Parol evidence is admissible in an action for deceit, and the case is for the jury where the evidence tends to show a disclosure of the business to be conducted by lessees; essential necessity for a weather-tight bay window; assurance by the landlord of good condition of the window; acceptance by lessee by reason of this assurance, and bad condition of the bay window, resulting in serious damage to the plaintiff: Wolfe v. Arrott, 109 Pa. 473, followed.</p>