Thompson v. McGill
Mississippi Chancery Courts
The bill in this case states that in 1837 complainant was owner of lots fifty-two and fifty-five, in the town of Koscinsco, and that he sold them to the defendant, McGill, for the sum of four thousand dollars, of which the sum of one thousand was paid in cash, and the remainder was payable in two equal annual instalments, for which McGill gave his two notes, payable on the first of January, 1838, and first of January, 1839..
Read the full summary
The bill in this case states that in 1837 complainant was owner of lots fifty-two and fifty-five, in the town of Koscinsco, and that he sold them to the defendant, McGill, for the sum of four thousand dollars, of which the sum of one thousand was paid in cash, and the remainder was payable in two equal annual instalments, for which McGill gave his two notes, payable on the first of January, 1838, and first of January, 1839.. Complainant did not make a title to the lots, but gave him a bond for title on the payment of the purchase money. On the note first due complainant commenced suit and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This case has proved with me to be one of great doubt and difficulty, resulting from its novelty, and the entire absence, so far as my researches have gone, of any adjudged case having the remotest analogy to it. I must endeavor to settle it, therefore, upon the general principles and analogies of the law.
If application had been made to this court, to prevent the sale under execution, I should have had no hesitation in awarding an injunction, because nothing can be clearer upon either principle ox-authority than that a vendee of land holding a mere bond for title, and not…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Krider v. LaffertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836