Higby v. Whittaker
Ohio Supreme Court
Reserved in Sandusky county. The bill of complaint states, that the defendant, Whittaker, on. September 10,1833, contracted to sell to the complainant a certain tract of land, in the county of Sandusky, lying on the Sandusky river, in the Whittaker Reserve, and called the “ Orchard Farm;” also, 90 acres in the same reserve, and lying northeast of the-aforesaid tract, the whole to contain 347 acres; for which the complainant was to pay $3,000 in equal annual installments; the…
Read the full summary
Reserved in Sandusky county. The bill of complaint states, that the defendant, Whittaker, on. September 10,1833, contracted to sell to the complainant a certain tract of land, in the county of Sandusky, lying on the Sandusky river, in the Whittaker Reserve, and called the “ Orchard Farm;” also, 90 acres in the same reserve, and lying northeast of the-aforesaid tract, the whole to contain 347 acres; for which the complainant was to pay $3,000 in equal annual installments; the first payment to be made on April 1, 1836, with interest on the whole sum. The complainant avers, that he has paid…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Wood
delivered the opinion of the court:
Two questions only arise, in this case, necessary for consideration. The first is,( whether Whittaker was guilty of fraud, as charged in the bill? The second, whether Burchard, under the facts disclosed, could rescind the contract, without refunding to the complainant the purchase money admitted by the answer to have been received ? The fraudulent misrepresentation complained *of, is unequivocally denied in the answer, and must therefore be proved by the testimony of more than one witness. The evidence of Isaac Harris and David Camp are alone…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. General Electric Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1986
- Walters v. MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Grafeman Dairy Co. v. St. Louis Dairy Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Buydden v. MitchellOhio Court of Appeals · 1951