Cochran v. Blout

Supreme Court

Cochran v. Blout

161 U.S. 350, 16 S. Ct. 454, 40 L. Ed. 729, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2169

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 2, 1896

Docket116

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 161 U.S. 350 (Cochran v. Blout) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cochran v. Blout, 161 U.S. 350, 16 S. Ct. 454, 40 L. Ed. 729, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2169 (1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Shiras,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

In order to be able to enforce specific performance by Lansburgh, as prayed for in his amended bill of complaint, Cochran must show that, at the time he made the agreement with Dyer, Lansburgh either held himself out as the owner of the *354 entire square, or as having authority from his coowners to sell the whole of it.

It is a conceded fact that Lansburgh was the owner of but one third interest in the land concerned, and it is clear that, on September 26, 1889, Dyer was aware that there were other owners. This appears from the fact that prior to that date Dyer reported to Lansburgh that one Iloltzman had made a proposal to buy a part of the square, and had been told by Lansburgh that he was not the sole owner of the. property, and would have to see others. The fact that the paper given by Dyer to Cochran was signed by the former as agent for Lansburgh and others was sufficient to show that Dyer was aware that Lansburgh was not the sole owner, and was notice to Cochran of that fact.

There remains, then, the other alternative. Did Lansburgh claim to have authority from his coowners to act for them in selling the whole? If he did so, and if Dyer, acting upon such a representation, contracted, as agent for the owners, with Cochran for a sale of the entire tract, then it may be conceded that Cochran, upon compliance by him with-the terms of the contract, might, on learning that some of the owners had not authorized Lansburgh to sell their interests and refused to be bound, hold Lansburgh to make good his representations by conveying his individual interest in the land sold.

In his amended bill of complaint Cochran charges that Lansburgh claimed to act under authority from the other owners in placing the lands in the hands of Dyer for sale. Lansburgh, in his answer, denies that he claimed to act for the others, and asserts that he fully informed Dyer that he would have to secure the approval of the other owners; that Dyer acted upon that information and endeavored vainly to procure theirv assent to the sale, and that his, Lansburgh’s, approval of the sale was conditional on such assent.

In the issue thus formed as to this question of fact the burden is upon Cochran. He must overcome the responsive effect of the sworn answer, and satisfy a court of equity that the facts were as alleged by him. And this we think he has failed to do. '

*355 The testimony was conflicting, and our examination of it leads to the adoption of the conclusion of the Supreme Court of the District, and its decree dismissing the bill is accordingly

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Shiras,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

In order to be able to enforce specific performance by Lansburgh, as prayed for in his amended bill of complaint, Cochran must show that, at the time he made the agreement with Dyer, Lansburgh either held himself out as the owner of the *354 entire square, or as having authority from his coowners to sell the whole of it.

It is a conceded fact that Lansburgh was the owner of but one third interest in the land concerned, and it is clear that, on September 26, 1889, Dyer was aware that there were other owners. This appears from the fact that prior to that date Dyer reported to Lansburgh that one Iloltzman had made a proposal to buy a part of the square, and had been told by Lansburgh that he was not the sole owner of the. property, and would have to see others. The fact that the paper given by Dyer to Cochran was signed by the former as agent for Lansburgh and others was sufficient to show that Dyer was aware that Lansburgh was not the sole owner, and was notice to Cochran of that fact.

There remains, then, the other alternative. Did Lansburgh claim to have authority from his coowners to act for them in selling the whole? If he did so, and if Dyer, acting upon such a representation, contracted, as agent for the owners, with Cochran for a sale of the entire tract, then it may be conceded that Cochran, upon compliance by him with-the terms of the contract, might, on learning that some of the owners had not authorized Lansburgh to sell their interests and refused to be bound, hold Lansburgh to make good his representations by conveying his individual interest in the land sold.

In his amended bill of complaint Cochran charges that Lansburgh claimed to act under authority from the other owners in placing the lands in the hands of Dyer for sale. Lansburgh, in his answer, denies that he claimed to act for the others, and asserts that he fully informed Dyer that he would have to secure the approval of the other owners; that Dyer acted upon that information and endeavored vainly to procure theirv assent to the sale, and that his, Lansburgh’s, approval of the sale was conditional on such assent.

In the issue thus formed as to this question of fact the burden is upon Cochran. He must overcome the responsive effect of the sworn answer, and satisfy a court of equity that the facts were as alleged by him. And this we think he has failed to do. '

*355 The testimony was conflicting, and our examination of it leads to the adoption of the conclusion of the Supreme Court of the District, and its decree dismissing the bill is accordingly

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 U.S. 350, 16 S. Ct. 454, 40 L. Ed. 729, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-blout-scotus-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack