Rees v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
The bill was brought by the assignee of the vendor of a tract of land, against the purchaser, to obtain a decree for the balance of the purchase money, or a rescinding of the contract. The facts were these: Ludwick Wolfley, James Hunter, John Hunter, Morris Rees, Solomon Rees, Thomas Rees, and Noah Zane were proprietors in unequal proportions of sec. 11, T. 14, R. 19, situate in Fairfield county.
Read the full summary
The bill was brought by the assignee of the vendor of a tract of land, against the purchaser, to obtain a decree for the balance of the purchase money, or a rescinding of the contract. The facts were these: Ludwick Wolfley, James Hunter, John Hunter, Morris Rees, Solomon Rees, Thomas Rees, and Noah Zane were proprietors in unequal proportions of sec. 11, T. 14, R. 19, situate in Fairfield county. The land having been entered at the Chillicothe land office, an agreement was made between the parties that the patent should issue to Zane, who gave a bond to each of the others to convey him his…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court by
Judge Burnet :
Two questions are presented in this case: 1. Has the court jurisdiction ? 2. Has the contract been, performed on the part of Rees, so as to entitle him to the relief prayed for?
As to the first inquiry, it is manifest that the subject matter of the contract comes properly within the province of a court of chancery. The defendant might have sustained a bill for specific performance, or to rescind ; and it is contended with some force, that this right *must be so far reciprocal as to authorize the vendor to sustain a bill where the covenants on his part have…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ansley v. CarlosSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Cameron v. Ohio Department of TransportationOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- Steeg v. ScharenbergOhio Court of Appeals · 1969