Osborn v. Phelps
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, brought originally to the county court, by Bethuel Phelps, against Hiram Osborn, Arnold Hamilton, William Abbe and Daniel B. Dorman. The object of the bill was to procure the correction of a mistake in a contract for the sale of a certain tract of land, and a decree for the specific execution of the contract.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, brought originally to the county court, by Bethuel Phelps, against Hiram Osborn, Arnold Hamilton, William Abbe and Daniel B. Dorman. The object of the bill was to procure the correction of a mistake in a contract for the sale of a certain tract of land, and a decree for the specific execution of the contract. The material facts, as found by the county court, are substantially these, Phelps, the plaintiff in the suit, was the owner of a certain mill privilege, situated in the town of East-Windsor, upon which he was about to erect a mill. Osborn, one of…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
Our statute provides, “ that no suit in law or equity shall be brought or maintained upon any contract for the sale of lands, unless the contract upon which the action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof, shall be made in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person, thereunto by him lawfully authorized.” Stat. 299. tit. 39. s. 1. (ed. 1838.)
The original suit, in this case, was brought for the purpose of obtaining a decree for the specific execution of a contract for the sale of land. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the plaintiff to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Trowbridge v. DunsbaghNew York Supreme Court · 1799
- Carey v. RawsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
3Cited by24 opinions
- Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Glass v. HulbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Allen v. KitchenIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Ringer v. HoltzclawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.