Purcell v. Miner
Decision Date | 01 December 1866 |
Citation | 71 U.S. 513,18 L.Ed. 435,4 Wall. 513 |
Parties | PURCELL v. MINER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
PURCELL filed a bill against Coleman, Miner and wife, and others, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, where the statute of frauds—enacting that all estates in lands made by parol only and not put in writing and signed by the parties making the same shall have the force and effect of estates at will only is in force. The bill set forth that Coleman having a house in Washington, and he, Purcell, a farm in Virginia, 'a trade' had been made between them; and the possession and key of the house delivered to him by Coleman, and full payment admitted by Coleman's receiving the farm, the title of which he had examined, and 'the trade' closed; and that Coleman had requested the complainant to prepare both deeds; that Purcell had done so, and had tendered and was now ready to tender to Coleman a deed for the farm according to the contract.
The bill then went on:
'Your orator further avers that the said Miner stated to your orator in the presence of several gentlemen that it was not necessary to make him a party to the suit to compel the legal title; that if your orator succeeded against said Coleman, that said Coleman was to convey back to him or his wife the land in Virginia, which he had conveyed to said Coleman for the house and lot referred to, thereby showing that their pretended exchange was entirely depending on the right of your orator to the said house and lot, which is still in your orator's possession, but owing to the annoyance, by said Coleman and Miner, he has been unable to rent it.
'Your orator further avers that it is impossible to place your orator and the said Coleman in the same situation they were in before they exchanged property, because the said Coleman not having given attention to the farm, a barn has been destroyed, and also much of the fencing, as your orator has been informed and believes, and that he has been at expense in repairing the house and lot, & c.'
The bill prayed a specific performance of the contract set up.
The bill was answered by Miner, denying, &c., and set out that Miner also having a farm in Virginia, he and Coleman had agreed on and actually consummated a bon a fide and unconditional exchange of the house for it.
The answer then thus went on:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrow v. Matthew
... ... Wadsworth , 147 Ill. 80, 35 N.E. 73; Reeve v ... Strawn , 14 Ill. 94; Corder v. Corder , 124 Ill ... 229, 16 N.E. 107; Purcell v. Miner , 71 U.S. 513, 4 ... Wall. 513, 18 L.Ed. 435; Shaw v. Shaw , 86 Mo. 594; ... Woodward v. Sibert , 82 Va. 441; Byers v ... Danley , 27 ... ...
-
Taylor v. Von Schroeder
...case out of the statute, the possession must be delivered in pursuance of the contract and with a view to the performance of it. Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. 513; Williams v. Morris, 95 U.S. 444; Story's Eq. Jur., sec. 763. First. Mrs. Von Schraeder, the supposed vendor, did not have the posse......
-
Woodworth v. Franklin
...the land is of no avail as an act of part performance, neither is a scrambling and litigious possession sufficient. Purcell v. Collins, 71 U.S. 513, 18 L. Ed. 435. We are convinced that the acts of Franklin in taking possession of the land under said leases after he knew that Woodworth deni......
-
Bethurem v. Hammett
...statute of frauds is founded in wisdom, and has been justified by long experience. As was said by Mr. Justice Grier in Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. 513, 517 (18 L.Ed. 435): " 'The statute is "absolutely necessary to preserve the title to real property from the chances, the uncertainty, and the......