¶1The jury have found that the defendant had not the land he contracted to convey; in-contemplation of law it was therefore a fraud. If the defendant had such land as he has attempted to prove (though he had not a legal title to it), if he offered to show land, to which he was entitled by contract for locating, by showing this he may perhaps have relief in equity; but, it having been found by the jury that he had no title, there must be judgment for the value of the land as it was estimated at this time. See 2 Hayw. 334, 336 366; [Simms v. Slacum] 3 Cranch [7 U. S.] 300; 1 Johns. 223; 2 Burrows, 1110; Bull. N. P. 132; 2 Call, 95; 3 Caines, 221; 4 Mass. 109; Hardin, 41; Add. 23; [State of New York v. State of Connecticut] 4 Dall. [4 U. S.] 5; [Williamson v. Kincaid] Id. 20; 3 Call, 326.
30 F. Cas. 160
Wilson v. Robertson
U.S. District Court
Decided July 1, 1809
U.S. District Court · decided 1809-07-01
The defendant had given an obligation to make Clark a deed in fee simple, to six hundred and forty acres of land, his choice out of two thousand acres on the waters of Stone’s river, to join some corner of the tract. The bond was given about twenty years ago, and the title was to be made .so soon as grants should issue. It did not appear that the defendant had any such land on the waters of Stone’s river.
Relies on Potter v. Lansing · Caswell v. Wendell
Decided 1809-07-01