Court Opinion

ID: 6414649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:55:15.003603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:17.852434
License: Public Domain

Chapman, J.
The court are of opinion that the evidence does not prove that the defendants contracted with the plaintiff for the sale of the land to him. The vote passed on the 11th of August does not import a contract, even when approved by the mayor. It was not communicated to the plaintiff as a contract, and it does not appear that it was intended to be so. On the contrary, it was to be communicated to the proper officers of the city as an authority to them to execute a deed, and it contemplates the deed as the only contract which the city was to make with the plaintiff. It was thus a mere preliminary to the completion of the contract. This construction of the vote makes all the other points that have been argued immaterial.
Bill dismissed with costs.