Zoebisch v. Rauch

Citations

• 133 Pa. 532
• 19 A. 415
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 930

Syllabus

<p>1. In assumpsit for the breach of a parol contract to buy a life-estate in realty from the plaintiff, who had bought said estate at sheriff’s sale, evidence that, pending proceedings by the plaintiff to dispossess the life-tenant, they were suspended for a conference as to a compromise, is irrelevant.</p> <p>2. Such action being against defendants jointly, and one having denied the authority of the other to bind him, a letter written by the former to the latter, after the alleged contract was made, directing him not to make any contract till the writer’s return, is not irrelevant.</p> <p>3. A contract cannot be said to have been completed if something remained to be agreed upon; and a direction to the jury to the effect that if the terms upon which the money was to be paid were not fully determined, the contract was not yet completed, was not erroneous.</p> <p>4. A ratification presupposes knowledge of the act to be ratified; it was not error, therefore, to charge that there could be no binding ratification of the contract by one defendant, unless the latter had been fully informed of what the other defendant had done in relation thereto.</p>