Foust v. Shoffner
Geo. Foust v. Peter Shoffner and Daniel Shoffner.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Pearson, C. J.
There can be no doubt when one gives his note as the price of a tract of land, and takes no bond for title, but relies upon the verbal promise of the vendor to make a deed, that if the vendor collects the note by judgment, and then refuses to make title, and takes advantage of the Statute of Frauds, a Court of Equity will not allow him to keep the money, but will compel him to refund, on the ground that the note was obtained by a fraudulent mis *243 representation, and a false promise; and in sucb case, the purchaser may maintain a bill, and require the vendor either to comph' with the confidence reposed in him and make title, or else refund the money.
Albea v. Griffin, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 9 .
The plaintiff in this case however, seeks to avoid the contract for the defendants, instead of waiting to see whether they will take advantage of the Statute of Frauds; and the defendants, by their answers, aver a willingness to execute title, and comply with their verbal undertaking in respect to the land. This fully meets any equity on the part of the plaintiff.
Per Curiam.
Bill dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.