Pipkin v. James
Tennessee Supreme Court
Shadrach Pipkin instituted this action of assumpsit against William R. James on the 20th September, 1838, in the circuit court of Hardeman county, to recover the consideration money which he had paid for an ice-house and lot in the town of Bolivar. It was tried at the March term, 1839, on the plea ofnon-assumpsit, before Judge Barry, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the .defendant. The plaintiff appealed in error to this court.
Read the full summary
Shadrach Pipkin instituted this action of assumpsit against William R. James on the 20th September, 1838, in the circuit court of Hardeman county, to recover the consideration money which he had paid for an ice-house and lot in the town of Bolivar. It was tried at the March term, 1839, on the plea ofnon-assumpsit, before Judge Barry, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the .defendant. The plaintiff appealed in error to this court. The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTurley, J.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of money paid as the consideration of the purchase of an ice-house and lot, upon two grounds: First, that the contract is void by the operation of the statute of frauds and perjuries; second, that the defendant had not, at the time of the sale, nor yet has, any title to the property sold.
It appears from the proof that the plaintiff and one R. Oliver had purchased from the defendant a quantity of groceries and an ice-house and lot, and that R. P. Neily, at the request of both parties, made out an invoice or memorandum of the different…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Colson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- Gillet v. MaynardNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- January v. Mansell's administratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1817
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sandra Lynn Hobbs v. Lisa Hobbs NottinghamCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2015