Brown v. Haines
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a Bill in Chancery, to review a decree of the Supreme-court of Clermont county. On the second of October, 1829, the following agreement was entered into between the complainant, and the. defendant, Haines : “ This agreement, between E. S. Haines and Samuel Brown, witnesseth, that the said Haines hath this day sold, to the said Brown, parts of surveys 4441, and 4442, in Clermont county, estimated at 250 acres, 2] at $1 50 per acre, to be paid, $25 00 *in cash, atthe…
Read the full summary
This is a Bill in Chancery, to review a decree of the Supreme-court of Clermont county. On the second of October, 1829, the following agreement was entered into between the complainant, and the. defendant, Haines : “ This agreement, between E. S. Haines and Samuel Brown, witnesseth, that the said Haines hath this day sold, to the said Brown, parts of surveys 4441, and 4442, in Clermont county, estimated at 250 acres, 2] at $1 50 per acre, to be paid, $25 00 *in cash, atthe time of survey, and the balance in one year from the said survey ; and, upon such payment being completed, the said…
1Opinion of the Court
Read, Judge.
This is a bill to review a decree of the Supreme-Court of Clermont county, dismissing a bill, seeking a specific performance of a contract for the purchase of a tract of land from Haines, and a conveyance, from Carr, of the legal title of part of said tract of land, upon the ground that Carr acquired the title from Haines after said contract, and with a fuil knowledge of the equities of this complainant.
* One ground of error upon which the decree is sought to be [9 reversed, is, that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction of the case, as to Haines. That the decree from which the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ritter v. Perma-Stone CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
- Beamer v. BeamerOhio Court of Appeals · 1969
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 1862