Williams v. Champion
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause was adjourned for decision here, from the county of Geauga. It was a bill in chancery, seeking the specific performance of a contract, or compensation in money. The material facts of the case were as follows: In January, 1818, the complainant purchased of the respondent, Champion, six hundred and sixty-six acres of land, at the aggregate price of three thousand five hundred and sixty-two dollars.
Read the full summary
This cause was adjourned for decision here, from the county of Geauga. It was a bill in chancery, seeking the specific performance of a contract, or compensation in money. The material facts of the case were as follows: In January, 1818, the complainant purchased of the respondent, Champion, six hundred and sixty-six acres of land, at the aggregate price of three thousand five hundred and sixty-two dollars. Payments thus : on demand, one thousand three hundred and eighty-four dollars and seventy-seven cents; on October 1, 1818, seven hundred and twenty-five dollars and seventy-seven cents; on…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The defense that has been relied upon by the respondents, in arguments on the circuit, may be thus stated:
1. Williams abandoned his claim in 1825, by declaring his expectation of compensation, in damages, from Champion.
2. The claim is extinguished by lapse of time.
3. Williams knew of the sale to Tuttle, and neither asserted his claim, nor made other objection.
The contract of 1820 gave Williams a right to demand the conveyance of seventy-five acres, upon completing sales of the residue of the original tracts sold to him in January, 1818. Much the larger portion of these tracts had…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Beer v. GriffithOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Mayo v. Williams' Adm'rOhio Supreme Court · 1848