Waters v. Travis
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
THE respondent, on the 17th July, 1802, filed a bill in the court of chancery, against the appellant, for an account, and the specific performance of an agreement, by which the appellant and one Henry Wisner were to convey to the respondent part of lot No. 39. in the angle of the Minisinlc patent, in the town of Wall-hill, in Orange county.
Read the full summary
THE respondent, on the 17th July, 1802, filed a bill in the court of chancery, against the appellant, for an account, and the specific performance of an agreement, by which the appellant and one Henry Wisner were to convey to the respondent part of lot No. 39. in the angle of the Minisinlc patent, in the town of Wall-hill, in Orange county. The bill stated, that about sixteen years complainant purchased of one Carry his improvements made on a farm of which the complainant, soon after, took possession, and which he has since continued to occupy and improve; that he understood, afterwards, that…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
The first objection to the decree is, that it decrees a specific execution of part of an entire contract; that the respondent will get a conveyance for 234 acres, instead of 439, to which he was entitled, if any. The agreement of 1787 was executory; it did not vest any legal title in the respondent; but it gave him a right to coerce the appellant and Wisner, by resorting to a court of equity, to a specific execution; or he had the election to sue at law, in case they refused to convey the lands to him, for damages. It cannot be controverted, that a conveyance for a valuable consideration,…
2Cited by34 opinions
- Love v. WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Seymour v. DelancyNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Atkinson v. ManksNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Tate v. Pensacola, Gulf, Land & Development Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1896
- Van Dyke v. ColeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.