Lamb v. Smith

Supreme Court of Virginia

Lamb v. Smith

6 Va. 552

DecidedNovember 7, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Va. 552 (Lamb v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lamb v. Smith, 6 Va. 552 (Va. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

November 7.

JUDGE GREEN.

This 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 t3 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 Here was a mutual mistake as to the very subject of the contract, and it is void, and should be rescinded, and the parties put in statu quo, by the repayment of the money, the vendor having no title to the property really sold.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 CARR, COADTER and CA-BEEE concurred.*

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

November 7.

JUDGE GREEN.

This 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 t3 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 Here was a mutual mistake as to the very subject of the contract, and it is void, and should be rescinded, and the parties put in statu quo, by the repayment of the money, the vendor having no title to the property really sold.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 CARR, COADTER and CA-BEEE concurred.*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Va. 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamb-v-smith-va-1828.