Clark v. Langworthy
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Dubuque District Court. This is a suit in chancery, brought by-complainant, to=enforce a specific performance Of the following agreement: “ The state of Iowa, July, 1853. Be it remembered, that Lucius H. Langworthy, of the city of Dubuque, and Lincoln Clark of the same place, do hereby covenant and agree with each-other as follows, to wit: The said Langworthy sells to said Clark, the south half of his lot on the bluff at the head c f Main street, in said…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Dubuque District Court. This is a suit in chancery, brought by-complainant, to=enforce a specific performance Of the following agreement: “ The state of Iowa, July, 1853. Be it remembered, that Lucius H. Langworthy, of the city of Dubuque, and Lincoln Clark of the same place, do hereby covenant and agree with each-other as follows, to wit: The said Langworthy sells to said Clark, the south half of his lot on the bluff at the head c f Main street, in said city, and bounded on the east by lot no. 677, and on the west by lot-No. 678, for which the-said Clark is to pay to the said…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodward, J.
Whether the decree of the court below can be sustained, we think must alone depend upon the construction to be given to the written agreement. The complainant claims, that the proviso therein contained, relates alone to the time of payment, and that the true meaning of the language used, is that he bought the lot, and was to have credit for the purchase money, until the act of Congress passed; and that if the act did not pass at that session, he was to pay at all events on the adjournment, and was then entitled to a deed. On the other hand, the respondent claims, that the proviso refers to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lewis v. KerrSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864