Mannix v. Hildreth
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Hearing on an appeal by the complainants from a decree-of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an equity term, dismissing a bill for specific performance. The Court in its opinion stated the case as follows: Mannix & Stevens instituted this action to enforce specific performance by Mrs. Florence Hildreth of an alleged contract of sale of sub-lot 38, in square 217, in the city of Washington.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal by the complainants from a decree-of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an equity term, dismissing a bill for specific performance. The Court in its opinion stated the case as follows: Mannix & Stevens instituted this action to enforce specific performance by Mrs. Florence Hildreth of an alleged contract of sale of sub-lot 38, in square 217, in the city of Washington. About May 28, 1890, Mrs. Hildreth informed Hill & Johnston, real estate agents, that if she could purchase another house she would like to sell her said lot for $18,000. Early in June she…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Shepard
Pitney & Bradford were strangers to Mrs. Hildreth, and learned from some outside source — probably from the .advertisement of Hill & Johnston — that her property was for sale. Believing that it was cheap at $18,000 (as Baum-.grass testified), they, acting in the interest of their client, Mrs. McLinden, wrote this letter of July 17, 1890, making the offer of $17,000, part cash and part credit, with a deduction of 3 per cent, as a commission to themselves. From her reply it appears that Mrs. Hildreth was willing to take $17,000, all in cash, for the house and lot. She said: “I will accept” that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Duffy v. HobsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Grant v. EdeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Bissell v. TerryIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Simmons v. KramerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1891
- Graves v. HortonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jay v. General Realties Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1946
- Heyward v. KirschDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950