Pitts v. Cottingham
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to Talladega Circuit court, exercising chancery jurisdiction. Bill of complaint — heard by Shortridge, J. The bill in this case, stated that Cottingham sold Pitts two hundred acres of land, and represented it as lying within a mile of one Holley’s residence, being worth ten dollars an acre, &c. Pitts gave his notes for the purchase money, at that price, and Cottingham executed a bond for title.
Read the full summary
Error to Talladega Circuit court, exercising chancery jurisdiction. Bill of complaint — heard by Shortridge, J. The bill in this case, stated that Cottingham sold Pitts two hundred acres of land, and represented it as lying within a mile of one Holley’s residence, being worth ten dollars an acre, &c. Pitts gave his notes for the purchase money, at that price, and Cottingham executed a bond for title. Cottingham afterwards ascertained it was poor, barren, pine land, situate on a hill, of no value, and two or three miles distant from Holley’s. An injunction was granted below, on filing the…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
The facts alleged in this bill, may be said to present two grounds, on which the complainant seeks relief.
1. On account of the false representation of the nature and quality of the estate sold;
2. Because its location does not correspond with the defendant’s representation, made at the time of the sale.
It is necessary to ascertain, if these facts warrant the interposition of a court of equity, in behalf of the complainant.
It is said in the books, that a false representation respecting the nature of an estate, will not warrant the re-scisión of the contract for its sale, although the purchase…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McFerran v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Sherwood v. SalmonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1813
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cullum v. Branch of the Bank of AlabamaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Kelly's Heirs v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Steele v. LowrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1844