Case ID: pa_285/html/0101-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shillington Bank, Appellant, v. Moore.
    
      Equity — Specific performance — Discretion of court — Appeals.
    1. The appellate court will not reverse a decree of the court below refusing specific performance where no abuse of discretion has been shown.
    Argued November 30, 1925.
    Appeal, No. 14, Jan. T., 1926, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Berks Co., Equity Docket, 1922, No. 1332, dismissing bill in equity, in case of Shillington Bank v. Amanda Moore.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Bill for specific performance. Before Bertolet, J.
    Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was, inter alia, decree, quoting it.
    
      John B. Stevens, with him John W. Speieher, for appellant.
    
      Robert Grey Bushong, for appellee.
    January 4, 1926:
   Per Curiam,

Plaintiff has appealed from the refusal of the court below to enter a decree for specific performance of an alleged contract to sell real estate. After examining the record, we cannot hold that an abuse of discretion has been shown.

The decree is affirmed; costs to be divided between appellant and appellee, as they were in the court below.