Brock v. Hidy
Ohio Supreme Court
Civil action. Reserved in- tbe district court of Eayette .county. This is a proceeding by attaching creditors of ope Martin L. Carr, a defendant, to subject his alleged interest in eighty-six acres of land in Eayette county to the satisfaction of their judgments. The facts are, in substance, as follows: In January, 1844, one George Washington being the owner of the land wished to sell it.
Read the full summary
Civil action. Reserved in- tbe district court of Eayette .county. This is a proceeding by attaching creditors of ope Martin L. Carr, a defendant, to subject his alleged interest in eighty-six acres of land in Eayette county to the satisfaction of their judgments. The facts are, in substance, as follows: In January, 1844, one George Washington being the owner of the land wished to sell it. The defendant, Hidy, and one Solomon Carr, his uncle, entered into a verbal arrangement, by which Hidy was to buy the land of Washington, and, after he got the deed, sell it again to - Solomon Carr at the…
1Opinion of the CourtBrinkerhofe, J.
The case presents two questions:
1. Was Hidy, the vendor, under the circumstances of the case, on the expiration of the seven years’ term of credit given, entitled to rescind the contract, and resume possession of the land ? And if not—
2. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a specific performance, by him, without first tendering or bringing into court the amount due Hidy for the purchase money of the land ?
The plaintiffs, by the levying of their attachments, became entitled to all the rights and subject to all the obligations of Martin L. Carr; and he, by his purchase from Solomon Carr, the…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Cheney v. LibbySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Frink v. ThomasOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Bateman v. . HopkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Clarno v. GraysonOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Miller v. WatsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.