Wiswell v. Tefft
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Shawnee County. From the record in this case — very voluminous — the following, among other facts, appear: The plaintiff in error claimed to hold certain lots in the city of Topeka, under Henry B. Burgess, one of the original drawees of shares of the town company.
Read the full summary
Error from Shawnee County. From the record in this case — very voluminous — the following, among other facts, appear: The plaintiff in error claimed to hold certain lots in the city of Topeka, under Henry B. Burgess, one of the original drawees of shares of the town company. Burgess held by virtue of a contract, providing that “for and in consideration of the covenants hereinafter mentioned, the Topeka association agree to sell, and do hereby sell to Henry B. Burgess, share No. 29 of the Topeka association, and lots of land drawn and to be drawn thereto; and on the performance of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Valentine, J.
Contract to Sell Real Estate. Royal Wiswell, tbe plaintiff in this court and court below, claims solely and exclusively under one Henry B. Burgess. Tbe action is for tbe specific performance of an alleged contract to convey certain lots in tbe city of Topeka, but as no sucb contract is proved, we can scarcely understand bow it is expected that tbe plaintiff shall recover. It is true that in tbe year 1855 Burgess became a member of tbe Topeka association by purchasing share No. 29, but bow that cab be construed into a contract for tbe purchase of any specific real or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harris v. KnickerbackerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
3Cited by14 opinions
- Feeney v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- International Harvester Co. of America v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Dixon v. DukeIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Springer v. KleinsorgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Baldwin v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.