Coppage v. Equitable Guarantee & Trust Co.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Bill for Specific Performance. The Chancellor stated the facts as follows: The bill is that of a vendee to enforce specific performance of a contract for the sale of an unimproved lot of land in Wilmington, owned by Thomas S. Bellah in his lifetime and by him devised, as part of the residue of his" estate to the Equitable Guarantee & Trust Company in trust for his widow for life, with remainder to other persons, a„ general power of sale being given to the trustee.
Read the full summary
Bill for Specific Performance. The Chancellor stated the facts as follows: The bill is that of a vendee to enforce specific performance of a contract for the sale of an unimproved lot of land in Wilmington, owned by Thomas S. Bellah in his lifetime and by him devised, as part of the residue of his" estate to the Equitable Guarantee & Trust Company in trust for his widow for life, with remainder to other persons, a„ general power of sale being given to the trustee. After negotiations between the. complainant, Mr. Coppage, and Mr. Pennypacker, trust officer of the company, the former paid two…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
In this case the subject of the contra versy is a contract respecting land, and the evidence of it was a receipt signed by the vendor for part of the purchase money. The defense of the statute of frauds was expressly raised by the answers, and it was claimed that the memorandum was not sufficient to identify the land sold and bought. Extrinsic evidence was properly admitted to identify the “-lot of the Bellah estate on Delaware Ave. above Riverview Ave.” Crockett v. Green, 3 Del. Ch. 466, 487. From such evidence it was clear that the above quoted words of the memorandum could…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Western Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Peytona Cannel Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1875
- Norfolk Trust Co. v. FosterSupreme Court of Virginia · 1884
- Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. City of RochesterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898
- Stoeckle v. RosenheimCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1913
- Benson v. HumphreysSupreme Court of Virginia · 1881
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Frederich v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Witmer v. BloomCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Cieniewicz v. SliwkaCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1925