Windsor v. Bacon

30 A. 638, 12 Del. 1, 7 Houston 1, 1884 Del. LEXIS 1
Superior Court of Delaware·Decided April 17, 1884·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The Court, Comegys, C. J.,

charged the jury, that if they should be satisfied from the evidence that William H. Anderson who had sold the land in question to William J. Windsor and John S. Bacon, and delivered the possession to them as joint purchasers, had made and delivered a deed to them, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover, but if they should not be so satisfied then the purchasers had but an equitable title to the premises which would not [3] be sufficient to maintain the action, and the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover. Anderson, the vender, had a right to bid for the premises at the Sheriff’s sale if William J. Windsor had but an equitable and not a legal title to the undivided moiety of them without being estopped by so doing.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

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

Windsor v. Bacon, 30 A. 638, 12 Del. 1, 7 Houston 1, 1884 Del. LEXIS 1 (Del. Ct. App. 1884).

30 A. 638 (Windsor v. Bacon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers
538 U.S. 135 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of America
480 A.2d 647 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1984)
Nutt v. A.C. & S., Inc.
466 A.2d 18 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1983)
Burris v. Wilmington Trust Company
301 A.2d 277 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1972)
Biby v. Smith
272 A.2d 116 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1970)