Hadlock v. Williams
Supreme Court of Vermont
The leading facts in this case are, that in the year 1807, the defendant contracted for the purchase of the land in question with John Murray, who claimed to act as the executor of one Watson of the city of New York. There were two other executors, living at the time of this contract, and all the executors had a joint authority to convey. Defendant took a conveyance of the land and gave Murray a mortgage deed.
Read the full summary
The leading facts in this case are, that in the year 1807, the defendant contracted for the purchase of the land in question with John Murray, who claimed to act as the executor of one Watson of the city of New York. There were two other executors, living at the time of this contract, and all the executors had a joint authority to convey. Defendant took a conveyance of the land and gave Murray a mortgage deed. After having received payments to a considerable amount, the administrator of Murray brought his bill of foreclosure, and Williams filed his cross bill, insisting upon certain defects…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Redfield, Chancellor.
This case presents itself under two aspects.
I. That the defendant entered into the contract, know ing the defects in his own title. The court do not find sufcient testimony in the case, to warrant them in deciding that such was the fact. It might have been so, or Williams might have then honestly intended to pay off the mortgage securities and perfect his title. If this was the case, he would have been guilty of no actual fraud. But, at all events, after having obtained a decree in this court, in 1831, divesting him of whatever…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- PRATT & OTHERS v. Law & CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Greenleaf v. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
3Cited by2 opinions
- J. P. Eustis Manufacturing Co. v. Saco Brick Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Paddock v. KittredgeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858