¶1Further, they show no authority from Chandler to claim a deed from the petitionees in his behalf; nor do they show any ground of claim upon said Chandler, but a naked parol agreement to procure a deed of said premises, and convey them to the said Samuel, which will not warrant any suit in chancery for the relief prayed for.
1 Root 483
Cook v. Beacher
Decided January 15, 1793
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1793-01-15
PetitioN in chancery, showing that on the 10th of February A. D. 1779, on a settlement of accounts between Reuben Beacher, executor of Eliphalet Beacher and Joshua Chandler, there was found due from the estate of said Eliphalet to said Joshua, a greater sum than was due from Samuel Cook deceased, to the estate of said Eliphalet, upon a mortgage given by said Samuel to said Eliphalet, on the 14th of February A. D. 1761, as collateral security for a debt of £70 lawful money;…
Decided 1793-01-15