Carter v. Cook
Ohio Supreme Court
In Chancery. The facts of the case are these: Cook contacted vith one Beam, who held under contract with Smith, for one hundred and twenty acres of land, at about $1,320, in payments, went into possession of the land, and paid on his contract about $350. He then entered into a contract with the comjilainant, Carter, by which he agreed to sell the land to him, on payments, and put him into possession.
Read the full summary
In Chancery. The facts of the case are these: Cook contacted vith one Beam, who held under contract with Smith, for one hundred and twenty acres of land, at about $1,320, in payments, went into possession of the land, and paid on his contract about $350. He then entered into a contract with the comjilainant, Carter, by which he agreed to sell the land to him, on payments, and put him into possession. Cook was unthrifty, and under judgment for the purchase which Carter refused to pay or to secure, and finding it difficult to keep along with his family or secure the land, applied to McGiffin to…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
1. Had Carter any lien on the land for his payments •on account of the purchase ? If there was a valid contract between Carter and Cook, he undoubtedly had a lien for the money paid upon *the purchase before the transfer to McGiffin. McGiffin comes [445 Into the title while Carter was in possession claiming right, and is •ehargeable with notice to the extent of his equity — no farther. What was that equity? It could, in the nature of things, only be a right to.a conveyance according to the contract. What the contract really was, is not disclosed to us. Did he comply, or show a ■disposition to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Election CasesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Angier v. AngierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Alkire v. AlkireWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1890