Hyde v. Moffat
Supreme Court of Vermont
The plaintiff, in this case, declared as follows, “In a plea of the case, for that, at the city of Detroit, Michigan, on or about the 23d August, 1838, the defendant, by his deed of warranty in writing, duly executed under his hand and seal, and duly acknowledged, and for the consideration of the sum of ten thousand dollars then paid to him by the plaintiff, sold and conveyed to the plaintiff one equal undivided half of fourteen lots of land, of eighty acres each, situated…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, in this case, declared as follows, “In a plea of the case, for that, at the city of Detroit, Michigan, on or about the 23d August, 1838, the defendant, by his deed of warranty in writing, duly executed under his hand and seal, and duly acknowledged, and for the consideration of the sum of ten thousand dollars then paid to him by the plaintiff, sold and conveyed to the plaintiff one equal undivided half of fourteen lots of land, of eighty acres each, situated in the township of Kallamo, in the county of Eaton, in the state of Michigan, and then and there received said deed from…
1DissentRedfield, J.
Not being able to view this case in the same light as my brethren, I have deemed it of sufficient importance, both in principle and in amount, to justify me in stating some of the grounds of my own views.
As to the first point I shall spend but little time. I confine myself to the second count in the declaration, supposing, that, if either count is good, it must be that.
1. I think that count is too uncertain to be good, even upon general demurrer. It seems to be admitted on all hands, that it is not very easy to determine whether the count is in trespass on the case, or assumpsit. That may not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thorne v. DeasNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Foster v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Bates v. LoomisNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Hackley v. HastieNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Rutgers v. LucetNew York Supreme Court · 1800