278 Pa. 64 | Pa. | 1923
Opinion by
Plaintiffs’ bill asks specific performance of a contract for sale of real estate situate in the Borough of Bedford, known as Washington’s Headquarters. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and defendants answered, to which a formal replication was entered and testimony taken on behalf of plaintiffs. Defendants offered no evidence but at the close of plaintiffs’ testimony moved to dismiss the bill. Exceptions to the court’s findings were dismissed and a decree entered granting the prayer of the bill.
Edward M. Pennell, an attorney, acting for defendants, the owners, under authority given him to sell the property, entered into negotiations with plaintiffs which resulted in an agreement to convey for the consideration
The facts are not disputed and the principal contention of defendants is there was no delivery of the signed contract making it binding on defendants and, consequently, no written memoranda to satisfy the statute of frauds. We deem unnecessary an elaborate discussion of the question whether delivery of a writing for the sale of real estate is necessary under the statute of frauds. That question has been before this court in a number of cases and we have uniformly held an actual delivery is
In this case, the court below found, on ample evidence, defendants desired to sell the property in controversy and constituted Pennell their agent for that purpose; that he negotiated with plaintiffs, sold to them, received part of the purchase money and the contract was. reduced to writing, signed by both parties and returned to Pennell for the purpose of completing its terms. Plaintiffs were notified by Pennell that the contract had been executed by defendants and would be retained by him for the purpose of drawing the deed and mortgage. Clearly, the agreement was binding on both parties, as nothing remained to be done as a condition precedent to its becoming effective. The parties considered the deal closed when defendants signed and returned the agreement and the court below properly decreed specific performance.
The decree of the court below is affirmed at appellants’ costs.