Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 Pa. 496

Wotring v. Shoemaker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1883

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1883-03-19

140. Debt, by Esther Wotring, et ah, administrators of Michael Wotring, deceased, against Stephen Shoemaker, administrator of William Saeger, deceased, upon a promissory note for $463.50, dated September 22d 1875, signed by Thomas Bertseh and William Saeger to the order of Peter Gross, an On the trial, before Albright, P. J., the following facts appeared : At an Orphans’ Court sale of reSl estate by the administrators of Wotring, Thomas Bertseh became the purchaser of a…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-03-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1950

3 state decisions

1018831890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered March 19th 1883.

Per Curiam.

¶2— This note was given as part payment of the purchase money of land. The vendee having failed to comply with the conditions of his purchase, the vendors elected to rescind the contract of sale. They applied to the Orphans’ Court and obtained an alias order of sale, and sold the land to another purchaser. This suit is not to recover from the person to whom the property was first struck down, the difference between his bid, and the sum for which it was afterwards sold. It is against one who signed the note as security for the payment of so much of the purchase money. When that sale was rescinded, all liability for purchase money as such fell, and thenceforth the note was without consideration to support it.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/102/pa/496 · .json · Public domain