Douglas v. Oldham

Decided July 15, 1833

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1833-07-15

Covenant beoken, upon an instrument, in the following words. “ This agreement, made this 15th day of December, 1818, by and between Charles Douglas, and Charles Douglas, attorney for Jesse Farnum, of the first part; and John B. Oldham, of the second part, witness-eth, that the said party, of the first part, hath, this day, agreed to sell unto the said party of the second part,— the following described tract of land situated in Franklin, No. 3, and in Connecticut Western…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1833-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1938

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the court.'*

¶1We have no doubt, that the nature, validity, construction, and effect, of the contract are to be *154settled by the laws of Ohio. But the question now to be decided is, does covenant lie oil this instrument ? This question must be settled, not by the law of Ohio, but by our own law, and we think it very clear that, however it may be in Ohio, this paper cannot be considered here as a deed. There is nothing upon it which we can consider as a seal. Assumpsit, then, and not covenant, is the proper action, and there must be

¶2Judgment for the defendant.

¶3Parker, J. having been of Counsel did not sit.