Reed ex rel. Polly v. McGrew
Ohio Supreme Court
This case was reserved in the county of Stark, on a motion, made by the plaintiff for a new trial. It was an action of assumpsit, for money had and received. *On the trial of the case the following facts were proven : On August 7, 1819, the defendant entered into a contract under seal to convey to the plaintiff a quarter section of'land in the county of Stark, for the sum of five hundred and sixty dollars. Previous to February 21, 1821, the purchase money was paid.
Read the full summary
This case was reserved in the county of Stark, on a motion, made by the plaintiff for a new trial. It was an action of assumpsit, for money had and received. *On the trial of the case the following facts were proven : On August 7, 1819, the defendant entered into a contract under seal to convey to the plaintiff a quarter section of'land in the county of Stark, for the sum of five hundred and sixty dollars. Previous to February 21, 1821, the purchase money was paid. On December 20, 1822, another contract, under seal, was entered', into between the plaintiff and defendant, in which they agreed…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Hitchcock,
delivered the opinion of the court:
In the present action the plaintiff seeks to recover back money "by him paid when in contract to the defendant, and which he claims bas been rescinded, or which he has a right to rescind, in consequence of a failure, on the part of the defendant, to comply with his part of the contract. The only contract between the parties, ■in pursuance of which money was paid by the plaintiff to the de-' fendant, was made on August 7, 1819. In pursuance of this contract five hundred and sixty dollars were paid.- And whether the plaintiff claims to receive…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ottenstein v. Western Reserve AcademyOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
- State ex rel. Hunt v. S. M. FronizerSandusky County Court of Common Pleas · 1905