Difference between revisions of "Bedford v. Hickman"

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Background)
m
Line 2: Line 2:
 
[[File:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf ‎|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:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf ‎|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 Vol. V 236 (1804) ‎<ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],''(Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 236.</ref> 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.
+
[[Media:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf‎|''Bedford v. Hickman'']], Call Vol. V 236 (1804) ‎<ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],''(Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 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==
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.
+
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 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.
+
The County Court granted a perpetual injunction in favor of Hickman. Chancellor Wythe affirmed the decree, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==

Revision as of 13:24, 22 February 2018

File:CallsReports1833V5BedfordvHickman.pdf

Bedford v. Hickman, Call Vol. V 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

  1. Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,(Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 236.