Hurst v. Means
Tennessee Supreme Court
This was an action of debt, commenced in the common law and chancery court of the city of Memphis. At the March Term, 1852, HaeRis, Judge, presiding, there was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed in error. argued: A party who contracts to sell land, should have the legal title, or the means of enforcing it.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, commenced in the common law and chancery court of the city of Memphis. At the March Term, 1852, HaeRis, Judge, presiding, there was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed in error. argued: A party who contracts to sell land, should have the legal title, or the means of enforcing it. If he has not, the vendee has a right to disaffirm the contract; and if he has paid any part of the purchase money, he can receive it back in an action for money had and received; Pvphi/n vs. James, 1 Humph., 325; Olarlce vs. looke, 11 Humph., 300. And in case be elect…
1Opinion of the Court
TotteN J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The action is debt for four thousand five hundred dollars, alleged to be money had and received by defendant for the plaintiff’s use. The defendant pleaded nil debit. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff has appealed in error to this court.
The facts are these: “In October, 1842, the defendant sold to plaintiff a section of land in Marshall county, Miss., for three thousand five hundred dollars, payable in three instalments. At the same time, the plaintiff was admitted into possession of the premises, under the contract, and had so…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ward v. WardSuperior Court of Delaware · 1909