Legal Opinion

Edmund v. Boring

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 15, 1918PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPowell, J.

This was an action commenced in the court of common pleas *660by tbe plaintiff to enforce specific performance of a contract for tbe sale of real estate, entered into by him and the defendant, Mary J. Boring, on July 5, 1917. Said contract is as follows:

“Article of agreement by and between Mary J. Boring, of Thornville, Ohio, party of the first part, and H. H. Edmund, of Thornville, Ohio, party of the second part, Witnesseth:
“Mary J. Boring, this day sells her farm in Bowling Green township, Licking county, Ohio, consisting of one hundred and eight acres, more or less, to H. H. Edmund for the sum…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. McCarty v. LinghamOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Grundstein v. Suburban Motor Freight, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1952
  3. McCarthy v. LinghamOhio Court of Appeals · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API