McCoy's Administrators v. Bixbee's Administrators
Ohio Supreme Court
This case was reserved here for decision in the county of Delaware. The declaration was in covenant .upon an article of agreement, dated August 12, 1811, by which Bixbee, for and in consideration of (McCoy’s) covenants thereinafter contained, covenanted to execute and deliver to McCoy a good deed for one hundred and twelve acres of land, without fixing any time for the conveyance; and McCoy covenanted to pay therefor seven hundred and eighty-four dollars, as follows: three…
Read the full summary
This case was reserved here for decision in the county of Delaware. The declaration was in covenant .upon an article of agreement, dated August 12, 1811, by which Bixbee, for and in consideration of (McCoy’s) covenants thereinafter contained, covenanted to execute and deliver to McCoy a good deed for one hundred and twelve acres of land, without fixing any time for the conveyance; and McCoy covenanted to pay therefor seven hundred and eighty-four dollars, as follows: three hundred and ninety-two dollars on demand, and the balance of three hundred and ninety-two dollars in five years from the…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Wright
delivered the opinion of the court:
The points raised by the demurrer make it necessary for us to construe the covenant between these parties. Bixbee, in consideration of McCoy’s undertaking to pay him for a tract of land, covenanted to convey him the land, without mentioning any time for the bonveyance. McCoy stipulated to pay one-half the purchase money on demand, and the remainder in five years, with interest after eighteen months. The common sense construction of this contract, in the opinion of the court, is the legal one. Bixbee did not manifest a clear intention to convey…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Campbell v. GittingsOhio Supreme Court · 1850
- Sinks v. GreenCuyahoga Circuit Court · 1912