Pope v. Hoopes

Third Circuit

Pope v. Hoopes

90 F. 451, 33 C.C.A. 595, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1705

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 1898

DocketNo. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 90 F. 451 (Pope v. Hoopes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pope v. Hoopes, 90 F. 451, 33 C.C.A. 595, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1705 (3d Cir. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

BTJTLER, District Judge.

The decree is fully justified by the opinion of the circuit court:; and vve adopt it as an expression of our views. We will only say in addition that there is no such evidence of fraud or mistake as would warrant reformation of the contract; it is scarcely pretended that there is. Taking the paper signed by tiie parties, as it stands, the plaintiffs did not exercise their option to purchase within the time specified, and they are without excuse, tending to relieve them from the consequences. Their attention was [454]*454called to the terms of the contract, and their misunderstanding pointed out, in ample time to allow them to take the property described. Instead of taking it they declined to do so. At the time of filing their bill they were unwilling to take it; and still later when amending the bill they had not resolved to take it; and consequently asked further time to consider the subject. Time is of the essence of such contracts. If the plaintiffs had been misled respecting the terms (even without fault of the defendants) until the time for exercising the option.had expired, they might, possibly, be excused, and relieved from the consequences; but in view of the facts they certainly cannot.

The decree is affirmed.

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

BTJTLER, District Judge.

The decree is fully justified by the opinion of the circuit court:; and vve adopt it as an expression of our views. We will only say in addition that there is no such evidence of fraud or mistake as would warrant reformation of the contract; it is scarcely pretended that there is. Taking the paper signed by tiie parties, as it stands, the plaintiffs did not exercise their option to purchase within the time specified, and they are without excuse, tending to relieve them from the consequences. Their attention was [454]*454called to the terms of the contract, and their misunderstanding pointed out, in ample time to allow them to take the property described. Instead of taking it they declined to do so. At the time of filing their bill they were unwilling to take it; and still later when amending the bill they had not resolved to take it; and consequently asked further time to consider the subject. Time is of the essence of such contracts. If the plaintiffs had been misled respecting the terms (even without fault of the defendants) until the time for exercising the option.had expired, they might, possibly, be excused, and relieved from the consequences; but in view of the facts they certainly cannot.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 F. 451, 33 C.C.A. 595, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-v-hoopes-ca3-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack