Difference between revisions of "Bedford v. Hickman"
m (→Background) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| − | Hickman bought a tract of land from Bedford for “900 acres, more or less.” The purchase was for a total of £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 only contained 709 acres, and | + | Hickman bought a tract of land from Bedford for “900 acres, more or less.” The purchase was for a total of £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 only contained 709 acres, and a follow-up survey resulted in 765 acres. Hickman sued Bedford for fraud claiming that Bedford had knowledge of the amount of acreage 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 Court's Decision=== | ||
| − | The | + | The County Court granted a perpetual injunction in favor of Hickman. Chancellor Wythe affirmed the decree, to which the Court of Appeals affirmed. |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 10:23, 29 January 2018
File:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf
Bedford v. Hickman, Call Vol. V 236 (1804) [1] was a case involving whether a purchaser could be relieved from a contract granting a certain amount of acres, but subsequently giving significantly less acreage.
Background
Hickman bought a tract of land from Bedford for “900 acres, more or less.” The purchase was for a total of £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 only contained 709 acres, and a follow-up survey resulted in 765 acres. Hickman sued Bedford for fraud claiming that Bedford had knowledge of the amount of acreage 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, to 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), 236.
