Carr v. Hoxie
This text of 5 F. Cas. 138 (Carr v. Hoxie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Upon this evidence, I do not see, how the defence can be maintained. Here, there was no delivery of either instrument to Nichols, as the deed of the party, or as an escrow, to take effect upon the fulfilment of the conditions or agreements stated. Even supposing those conditions or agreements to be fulfilled, still the land will not pass, unless there has been an effectual delivery of the deeds with the assent of the parties respectively. See Degory and Roe’s Case, 1 Leon. 152, Moore, 300; Wheelwright v. Wheelwright, 2 Mass. 447, 452; Johnson v. Baker, 4 Barn. & Ald. 440; Perk. Com. §§ 137, 13S, 142-144; Bushell v. Pasmore, 6 Mod. 217, 218. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover upon the consummated title to him, subsequently made.
Verdict accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 F. Cas. 138, 5 Mason C.C. 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-hoxie-circtdri-1828.