Ullom v. Hughes

Citations

• 204 Pa. 305
• 54 A. 23
• 1903 Pa. LEXIS 795

Syllabus

<p>Title—Issue to determine title—Mines and mining—Act of June 10, 1893, P. L. 415—Ejectment.</p> <p>The Act of June 10, 1893, P. L. 415, entitled, “ An act to provide for the quieting of titles to land,” does not give a new right enforceable only in the prescribed way, but merely a new remedy for a right always existing to defend title and possession; and the new remedy is plainly intended to be cumulative only. All the old remedies remain unaffected. Either party may go into equity, the vendor for rescission or cancelation of the contract, and the vendee for specific performance. And the vendee still has the further choice of an ejectment or an action for damages for breach of the contract. In either of these ways he can have his case tried by a jury, but formerly the vendor had no such remedy.</p> <p>Where an owner of land gives an option to another, and a dispute arises as to whether the option has been exercised and accepted, the owner of the land is entitled to an issue under the act of June 10, 1893, to remove the cloud upon his title.</p> <p>In such a case the control of the court over both the form and the substance of the issue is ample, and should be exercised to fit the requirements of the real controversy between the parties. The defendant on coming in to answer the rule may disclaim, as provided in the act, or he may deny default on liis part and ask for a conditional verdict as if in ejectment, or he may set up a default by the plaintiff and elect to recover damages under a plea of set-off, as in an action for breach of contract. The court should mould the issue according to the circumstances, so as to reach a trial on the merits.</p>