Becker v. Second Active Building Association
| Decision Date | 17 March 1913 |
| Docket Number | 202 |
| Citation | 86 A. 1084,239 Pa. 590 |
| Parties | Becker, Appellant, v. Second Active Building Association |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 17, 1913
Appeal, No. 202, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T. 1909, No. 4751 refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Katharine Becker v Second Active Building Association. Affirmed.
Assumpsit on a contract. Before BREGY, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
At the trial when the plaintiff was on the stand the defendant asked for an offer of proof.
Mr. Byron: We have on record a great many admissions which really bring the case down to a close point as to whether or not there was any agreement of exchange -- as to what the agreement was. There is nothing in it with regard to the building association causing the $8,500 mortgage to be released as to the premises which Mrs. Becker retained -- the southwest corner of Tioga and Amber streets. I want to prove that she was induced to sign that agreement of exchange because of a verbal agreement made contemporaneously with John C. Geuther, the authorized representative of a building association, to cause the $8,500 mortgage which had been upon her remaining property to be released.
The Court: Do I understand you to mean that Mr. Geuther had authority from the building association to make an agreement to release the mortgage?
Mr. Byron: Yes, sir; implied authority. He had authority to so agree.
The Court: You will have to prove that first -- that he had that authority.
Mr. Byron: My offer is to prove by the witness that the oral agreement was made by Mr. Geuther which induced her to sign the written agreement; and that Mr. Geuther did so by authority of the building association.
(Objected to by Mr. Ballou.)
(Objection sustained.)
(Exception for plaintiff.)
Mr. Byron: I suppose that rules out my offer to prove by the witness the collateral agreement of the building association?
The Court: My thought is that the agreement for the sale of the real estate must be in writing, that the agreement for this sale is in writing and that you cannot prove orally anything inconsistent and different from the written agreement; and for that reason I sustain the objection and give you an exception.
Mr. Byron: Then I cannot go on. That is my case and I close.
The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.
Errors assigned were ruling on above offer quoting the bill of exceptions, and in refusing to take off nonsuit.
The judgment is affirmed.
Robert J. Byron, with him Albert S. Longbottom, for appellant.
De Forrest Ballou, with him H. Walter Geuther, for appellee.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
This appeal has nothing to support it. What is complained of is the rejection of an offer of evidence to prove an oral agreement, made contemporaneously with the written agreement by which the parties covenanted for an exchange of certain properties. The plaintiff was owner of two separate lots in the City of Philadelphia, both alike subject to the lien of a mortgage for $8,570. The defendant was owner of another property in the City of Philadelphia which was subject to a lien of a mortgage for $3,600. By written articles of agreement dated 13 September, 1901, they covenanted for an exchange of one of the properties owned by the plaintiff for that owned by the defendant, on these terms: the defendant was to convey its lot to the plaintiff subject to the mortgage of $3,600 for a cash consideration of $2,500; the plaintiff was to convey to defendant one of the lots owned by her, subject to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial