Scott v. Thorp
New York Court of Chancery
Bill for specific performance. The complainants held a contract of purchase, (as it afterwards appeared,) and on the strength of it, and without having had any deed of the property, ventured to sell it to the defendants, agreeing that they would cause to be executed and delivered a good and sufficient warrantee deed. The case now came before the court on the master’s report of title.
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice Chancellor:
The exceptions to the master’s report on title are not well founded. The evidence, I consider, sustains the report, though it would have been more satisfactory if the master had gone farther and shown how or in what manner the complainants would cause a good and perfect title to be made to the defendants, whether by delivery of the deed which is made an exhibit, dated the fifteenth day of June one thousand eight hundred and thirty two, executed by Willard and wife and Gardner and wife, or by some other act or deed. The order of reference, however, following the language of…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Stewart v. United Electric Light & Power Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
- Thompson v. Estate of PetroffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Kommavongsa v. HaskellWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Frost v. RaymondNew York Supreme Court · 1804
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.