Sebring v. Mersereau
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
On appeal from the court of chancery. The appeal was from that part of the decree which affirmed a decree of the circuit court, dismissing a supplemental bill filed to bring in judgment creditors in partition. For particulars, vid. 1 Hopk. Ch. Rep. 501, S. C. Sandford, late chancellor, assigned the reasons for the decree, as in 1 Hopk. Ch. Rep. 502 to 505, S. C.
1Opinion of the Court
Savage, Ch. J..(after stating the facts.) The appellant contends, that, as a purchaser, she ought not to be compelled to take a doubtful title. That proposition is undoubtedly correct in a proper case. Upon a bill for a specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, there is no doubt that a court of equity will avoid compelling a purchaser to take a doubtful title. So also of a purchaser under the foreclosure of a mortgage, and analogous cases. But in partition generally, and in this case particularly, there is no disputo, as between the parties about the *365title. [1] Their…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Whitton v. WhittonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1859
- Smith v. SiblichSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1891
- Smith v. SiblichThe Superior Court of New York City · 1891