Court Opinion

ID: 9698017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:39:30.238765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:32.097943
License: Public Domain

*440Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell ;
(1.) Plaintiff .admittedly did not surrender tbe premises in - question on April 1, 1954, and deliver a written acknowledgment to tbat effect, as. specifically required by tbe written escrow agreement- dated November, 1953... Plaintiff did not surrender tbe premises until after eviction proceedings had been commenced and then only on May 28, 1954. ■
The. Bank was not a party to and bad no knowledge of tbe alleged oral modification of the written escrow agreement which plaintiff alleges extended tbe time of surrender of the, premises, and therefore could not be liable thereunder. Certainly the Bank could not be. liable in trespass under the principle of the Keifer and Klauder cases infra: “ ‘One who, having knowledge of an existing valid contract between others, intentionally, ' I'movoingly, and .without reasonable justification or excuse * induces one of the- parties to- the contract to breach it to the damage of the other party, is liable in an action to recover the damages suffered. . . ”
(2) Even if there had been an oral modification of the “surrender” provision of the written agreement, as' plaintiff alleges,, plaintiff • completely failed to perform several other obligations in accordance with the terms of said written agreement.; . These obligations were. conditions precedent ■ to any recovery by her of any kind whatsoever — indeed, she admittedly has never yet - performed all her obligations. These- conditions precedent.which she failed to perform are as follows:
• (a) Plaintiff did not give,.and never has given, the releases which she covenanted under the agreement to execute and deliver.
(b) Plaintiff failed to comply'with and has not yet complied, with the agreement’s condition requiring *441a “satisfaction in' fall of all proceedings, judgments, and costs at No. 16 of 1947, in tbe Desertion and Non Support Branch, of the County Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,, and a certificate of satisfaction, all costs paid, at No. 3089 January Term, 1952, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.” ...
Since no time was specified in the. written agreement for the performance of any of the plaintiff’s conditions precedent except the surrender of the premises,' the written escrow agreement of the partiés must be construed to require a performance within a reasonable time. Nevertheless, we repeat, the plaintiff has never performed the conditions precedent hereinabove recited.
(3) Under the facts in this case, trespass will not lie against any of the defendants. Keifer v. Cramer, 356 Pa. 96, .51 A. 2d 694 and Klauder v. Cregar, 327 Pa. 1, 192 A. 667, relied upon by the majority, are clearly inapplicable to the instant case.
For each of these reasons I dissent.

 Italics throughout, ours.