Shiell v. M'Nitt
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decision of the vice chancellor of the fourth circuit, denying the defendant’s application to dissolve an injunction. The defendant had contracted with the complainant to sell him a farm on the first of April, 1839, for the sum of $5000 ; under which agreement the complainant went into possession.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decision of the vice chancellor of the fourth circuit, denying the defendant’s application to dissolve an injunction. The defendant had contracted with the complainant to sell him a farm on the first of April, 1839, for the sum of $5000 ; under which agreement the complainant went into possession. In December, 1839, that agreement was rescinded and another contract was entered into between the parties, under their respective hands and seals, to the following effect: The defendant M’Nitt agreed to sell the same farm to the complainant Shiell for the sum of $5000 ; the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
I do not concur in the opinion expressed by the vice chancellor in this case, that the part of the answer which sets out the whole of the agreement between the parties is not responsive to the bill, so as to entitle the defendant to use that part of his answer upon the application to dissolve the injunction.
It is not necessary to say what would have been the construction of the last clause of the written agreement between the parties, as stated in the answer, if that had constituted the whole agreement between them. Considering it as a simple agreement on the part of Shiell to…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Richards v. EdickNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Smith v. NewellSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
- Esmond v. Van BenschotenNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- City of New York v. Seely-Taylor Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Moir v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1852
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.