Difference between revisions of "Bedford v. Hickman"
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[File:CallBedfordvHickman1833v5p236.jpg |link=Media:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf |''Bedford v. Hickman'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]] | [[File:CallBedfordvHickman1833v5p236.jpg |link=Media:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf |''Bedford v. Hickman'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]] | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
| − | [[Media:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf|''Bedford v. Hickman'']], Call | + | [[Media:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf|''Bedford v. Hickman'']], 9 Va. (Call 5) 236 (1804) <ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,''(Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:236.</ref> involved whether a purchaser could be relieved from a contract granting a certain amount of land, but subsequently giving significantly less acreage. |
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
Revision as of 12:08, 13 March 2018
Bedford v. Hickman, 9 Va. (Call 5) 236 (1804) [1] involved whether a purchaser could be relieved from a contract granting a certain amount of land, but subsequently giving significantly less acreage.
Background
Hickman bought a tract of land from Bedford for “900 acres, more or less.” The purchase price was £1300, £650 of which was paid in cash and the other half in bond. Since purchasing the property, Hickman discovered that the deed for the tract contained only 709 acres; a follow-up survey showed 765 acres. Hickman sued Bedford for fraud claiming that Bedford knew the amount of land and did not inform Hickman. He requested the court allow the £650 to suffice as full payment for the property and dismiss the injunction on the bond.
The Court's Decision
The County Court granted a perpetual injunction in favor of Hickman. Chancellor Wythe affirmed the decree, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,(Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:236.
