Carr v. Hoxie

5 F. Cas. 138, 5 Mason C.C. 60
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island·Decided June 15, 1828·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

STORY, Circuit Justice.

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

Carr v. Hoxie, 5 F. Cas. 138, 5 Mason C.C. 60 (circtdri 1828).

5 F. Cas. 138 (Carr v. Hoxie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cook v. Brown
34 N.H. 460 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1857)
Eyerts v. Agnes
4 Wis. 343 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1856)
Chase v. Breed
71 Mass. 440 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1855)
Dwinal v. Holmes
33 Me. 172 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1851)
Rhodes v. School District No. 14
30 Me. 110 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1849)
Hulicik v. Scovil
9 Ill. 159 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1847)