Court Opinion

ID: 8079964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 13:56:12.675165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:38:22.689950
License: Public Domain

By the Court :
We are all agreed that there is nothing in the first ground assigned for a new trial. It is well settled in New York and in Kentucky, that where money is paid upon a parol contract for the -sale of land, and the vendor refuses or neglects to execute the contract, the money paid may be recovered back, and this stands upon too plain a principle of justice to be disputed.
Upon the second ground assigned, a majority of the court is of opinion that a new trial ought not to be granted. The defendants contracted to remove the lien of the mortgage from the lot they sold. They did not do so. On the contrary, they possessed themselves of the paramount title derived under the lien they agreed to extinguish, and refused to confirm it to the plaintiff unless he would make a new purchase. For the principle upon which they could demand a dollar for making a new deed, is none other than that having it in their power, they would insist upon a new bargain-Whether this amounted to an abandonment of the first contract was left to the jury, who have found in the affirmative. It is not pretended but that upon a special *count, rightly framed upon the contract, the plaintiff ought to have recovered. Substantial justice has therefore been done, and where that is the case, a new trial ought not to be granted.