Lamb v. Smith
Opinion
[555]*555This is not a Bill for the specific execution of a parol contract only, but to remedy a mistake in the execution of such a contract, offering the Defendant the alternative to correct the mistake, by conveying the property really purchased, if he has a title-to it, or to re-pay the money, if he has not. Here was a mutual mistake as to the very subject of the contract, and it is void, and should be rescinded, and the parties put in statu- quo, by the repayment of the money, the vendor having no title to the property really sold. The Decree should be affirmed.
Judges Garr, Coalter and Cabell concurred
Absent, the Paesident.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
27 Va. 552 (Lamb v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.