Brown v. Johnson
Mississippi Supreme Court
On appeal from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. Richard M. Johnson, on the 8th of February, 1845, filed his petition, alleging that in the case of Tillman M. Tucker, governor of the state, against the heirs of H. W. Runnels et al., a decree was made to sell, on behalf of the state, a tract of land, part of which was situated in section thirty-two, township nine, north of range four, west, which part petitioner wished to buy.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. Richard M. Johnson, on the 8th of February, 1845, filed his petition, alleging that in the case of Tillman M. Tucker, governor of the state, against the heirs of H. W. Runnels et al., a decree was made to sell, on behalf of the state, a tract of land, part of which was situated in section thirty-two, township nine, north of range four, west, which part petitioner wished to buy. He verbally so informed B. F. Johnson, and then went to Kentucky, from which state he wrote to him to the same eifect, directing him to bid…
1ConcurrenceJustice Clayton
delivered the following opinion.
I agree with the conclusion of the chiéf justice in this case..
All the court concur in the opinion, that the contract of purchase is not valid as to R. M. Johnson. It is an uniform principle of a court of equity, that when it decrees a rescission of a contract, it places.the parties as nearly as possible in statu quo. This is especially so, when a contract is avoided. The court endeavors to place the parties in the situation they respectively occupied before the contract was entered into. Fitzgerald v. Reed, 9 S. & M. 103. In the case just cited, the contract…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rossiter v. RossiterNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Ballou v. TalbotMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
- Meech v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Hampton v. SpeckenagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823