Jackson v. Myers

• Decision Date: 11 March 1918
• Docket Number: 225
• Citation: 260 Pa. 488,103 A. 953
• Parties: Jackson et al., Appellants, v. Myers, Guardian
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

103 A. 953

260 Pa. 488

Jackson et al., Appellants, v. Myers, Guardian

No. 225

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 11, 1918

Argued January 23, 1918

Appeal, No. 225, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1916, No. 1924 for defendant, entered on the pleadings in the case of Joseph A. Jackson, Bessie A. Jackson Curtis, Joseph Jackson Restein and James Restein v. Arthur J. Myers, Guardian of Lillian M Jackson and Ariel K. Jackson, Minors. Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a contract for the purchase of real estate. Motion for judgment on question of law raised by affidavit of defense. Before MARTIN, P.J.

The facts appear in Jackson et al. v. Myers, 257 Pa. 104, and in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court entered judgment for defendant on the pleadings. Plaintiffs appealed.

Error assigned was the judgment of the court.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

John G. Kaufman and Albert T. Bauerle, with them V. Gilpin Robinson, for appellants.

James W. Laws, for appellee.

Before POTTER, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER and WALLING, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE WALLING:

On the former appeal, Jackson et al. v. Myers, Guardian, 257 Pa. 104, we reversed the judgment entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and said, inter alia, "We must assume that the parties dealt with full knowledge of the law, and, therefore, knew that the estate of George W. Jackson, deceased, passing to the minors, was subject to a collateral inheritance tax which was a lien and must be paid before the minors received and could convey it. With this knowledge, the plaintiff contracted to pay the defendant '$40,000 in cash, without any deduction whatever' for their interest in the estate. The natural and necessary inference is that the parties meant what their contract clearly imports, that the stipulated price was to be paid without deducting the collateral inheritance tax. We think, therefore, that the case must be ruled against the plaintiffs on a proper interpretation of the contract."

The question of defendant's right to judgment on the pleadings was not then raised. After the record was remitted and case listed for trial, defendant moved for judgment pursuant to Section 20 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P.L. 483, on the ground that the case turned on questions of law raised by the pleadings. Plaintiffs objected to the motion, but the court below, in reliance upon our decision, entered judgment for the defendant; from which plaintiffs brought this appeal. We will not restate the facts or legal questions so fully presented in the opinion by our Brother MESTREZAT on the former appeal. However, as our attention has been called to Large v. McClain, 4 Sadler 240, we will say it is not parallel to this case, especially as there was no agreement there to pay a net sum for the interest of the heirs.

While the affidavit here set up some matters of fact, the case turned upon the construction of written instruments and was for the court. The rights of the parties were governed by the agreement for the purchase of the property by plaintiffs from defendant, the action of the Orphans' Court decreeing the sale thereof and the deed executed pursuant thereto; all properly set forth in plaintiffs' statement. Prior to said act, the whole case could have been disposed of on demurrer, and now can by affidavit raising questions of law as provided in the statute. Defendant did not waive his legal defense by including matters of fact in his...