Nicholson v. Pim
Ohio Supreme Court
In Chancery. Reserved in Champaign county. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The rescinding agreement created such an obligation, on the part of Pim, as can be enforced against him in a court of equity. Bryant v. Blight, 5 Mees. & Weis. 114; Jewry v. Bush, 5 Taunt. 302; Parsons on Cont., vol. 1, 538, and notes.
Read the full summary
In Chancery. Reserved in Champaign county. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The rescinding agreement created such an obligation, on the part of Pim, as can be enforced against him in a court of equity. Bryant v. Blight, 5 Mees. & Weis. 114; Jewry v. Bush, 5 Taunt. 302; Parsons on Cont., vol. 1, 538, and notes. The original contract being rescinded, and it being left to Pim —to his own sense of honor and justice — to refund and pay to complainant the amount which ought to be refunded and paid to him; the law implies a promise, on the part of Pim, to make the complainant a just…
1Opinion of the CourtKennon, J.
The case stands in this court upon the bill and amendment, answer of Pirn, and testimony.
Two questions are presented for the determination of this court. The first is, does the complainant make a case which entitles him to relief in any court; and the second is, if so, can he have that relief in a court of chancery ?
The solution of the first question depends entirely upon the evidence on file in the case.
The complainant was a member of an association calling themselves a “ Community.” He and his associates, in the spring of 1844, contracted with Pirn (the only defendant who has answered), to…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Franks v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1873
- Dewees v. SpiliotisOhio Court of Appeals · 1953
- Bonewitz v. BonewitzOhio Supreme Court · 1893
- Culver v. RodgersOhio Supreme Court · 1878
- K-W Ignition Co. v. Unit Coil Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.