Northrop v. Speary
Supreme Court of Connecticut
In the Court below, THE plaintiff declared in assumpsit, on the following facts : That on the 19th day of June, 1799, he sold to ' * • . ⅛ ■ the Defendant a certain piece of land, and gave his deed , c , , , , , ihcrefore, describing it by metes and bounds, and con-taming 42 acres, 2 quarters, and 21 rods ; that the parties agreed, that such being the quantity of the land, the defendant should pay to the Plaintiff a certain price therefore, which, upon the execution of said…
Read the full summary
In the Court below, THE plaintiff declared in assumpsit, on the following facts : That on the 19th day of June, 1799, he sold to ' * • . ⅛ ■ the Defendant a certain piece of land, and gave his deed , c , , , , , ihcrefore, describing it by metes and bounds, and con-taming 42 acres, 2 quarters, and 21 rods ; that the parties agreed, that such being the quantity of the land, the defendant should pay to the Plaintiff a certain price therefore, which, upon the execution of said deed, he accordingly paid : that it was, at the same time, further agreed, that if said land, on admeasurement,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The contract, stated in the declaration, was but one, entire contract, made at time of the sale and conveyance of the land, the whole of which ⅛ to be considered as included in the deed and note.
If parol testimony be admissible to establish the claim of the plaintiff below, on account of an excess of land, •sp the same principle, it must have been admitted, had *27the land fallen short of the estimate made at the time of the sale and conveyance, on a claim of reduction from the sum secured by the note. The effect of such construction and practice, would he (he destruction of all…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Belden v. SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Bladen v. WellsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
- George v. GeorgeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
- Carter v. HamiltonNew York Supreme Court · 1851