5 D.C. 435 (C.C.D.C. 1838), 5880, Guttschlick v. Bank of Metropolis

Docket Nº:5880[1]
Citation:5 D.C. 435, 11 F.Cas. 130
Opinion Judge:THE COURT.
Party Name:GUTTSCHLICK v. BANK OF THE METROPOLIS.
Attorney:Whereupon Mr. Coxe, for defendants, Mr. Bradley, contra, Mr. Coxe, for the defendant, Mr. Coxe, for the defendants,
Judge Panel:THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra CRANCH, Chief Judge, contra) THRUSTON and MORSELL, Circuit Judges. THRUSTON and MORSELL, Circuit Judges, here stopped Mr. Coxe upon that point. MORSELL, Circuit Judge, contra MORSELL, Circuit Judge. MORSELL, Circuit Judge, THRUSTON, Circuit Judge. THRUSTON, Circuit...

Page 435

5 D.C. 435 (C.C.D.C. 1838)

11 F.Cas. 130

GUTTSCHLICK

v.

BANK OF THE METROPOLIS.

No. 5880 [1]

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March 1838. [2]

         Assumpsit, to recover back the purchase-money from the defendants, for lot No. 5, in square No. 489, in Washington. The declaration had four counts: (1) That the plaintiff [Ernestus Guttschlick] bought of the defendants the lot No. 5, in the square 489, in Washington, for $1,191.25; in consideration whereof the defendants, through the president and cashier, agreed with the plaintiff that the defendants were pledge, when the purchase-money should be paid, to convey the lot to the plaintiff in fee-simple. That the plaintiff paid the purchase-money in full; but the defendants have not conveyed the lot to plaintiff, but refuse so to do. (2) That the defendants bargained and sold the lot to the plaintiff, and received the purchase-money, and in consideration thereof, put the plaintiff in possession of the lot, and agreed by their president and cashier, agents for that purpose duly authorized by the defendants, to convey the lot to the plaintiff in fee-simple. That the plaintiff continued in possession from the 9th of November, 1827, to the 30th of December, 1835, when he was turned out of possession by the Patriotic Bank; and while in possession was obliged to pay taxes and other public dues thereon, amounting to three hundred dollars. Yet the defendants, although often requested, have not conveyed the lot to plaintiff in fee-simple, but refuse, & c. (3) That the defendants promised, upon receipt of the purchase-money, to convey the lot to the plaintiff in fee-simple, free of incumbrance. That the plaintiff paid the purchase-money, but the defendants were not seized in fee-simple of the lot, and although requested, did not and would not convey the same in fee-simple to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff, being in possession, was obliged to pay taxes, & c., to the amount of three hundred dollars. (4) Indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received.

         Upon the trial, on the general issue, the plaintiff gave in evidence the following paper:

         ‘ Be it known, that on this 9th day of November, 1827, Ernest Guttschlick hath purchased of the Bank of the Metropolis lot No. 5, in square No. 489, as above described, and as laid down in the plat of the city of Washington, for the sum of $1,191.25, and that he hath paid, on account of the same, the sum of $591.25, leaving due the sum of $600, for which he hath given his note to the said bank, payable in six months after date, with interest from date, which sum of six hundred dollars, when paid, will be in full for the purchase-money of said lot. The Bank of the Metropolis, through the president and cashier, is hereby pledged, when the above sum shall be paid, to convey the said lot, namely, lot 5, in square 489, in fee-simple, to the said Ernest Guttschlick, his heirs or...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP