Jones v. Newhall
Decision Date | 20 June 1874 |
Citation | 115 Mass. 244 |
Parties | Leonard S. Jones v. Benjamin B. Newhall |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
[Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Bill in equity to enforce specific performance of the following agreement signed and sealed by the parties thereto:
The bill alleged the execution of the above agreement, the transfer of the plaintiff's interest in the Worthington Land Association, and payment therefor; that there remained due to the plaintiff from the defendant four of the monthly payments of three thousand dollars each mentioned in the agreement, with interest at seven per cent., together with the assessments that may be made on the Dorchester Land Association.
The bill also alleged readiness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract and tender of performance, and refusal on the part of the defendant.
To this bill the defendant demurred on the ground that the plaintiff had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant appealed.
The case was then heard before Ames, J., who reported it to the full court in substance as follows: The defendant executed the contract set up in the bill. The interest of the plaintiff in the Worthington Land Association has been conveyed to the defendant and paid for by him. In regard to the Dorchester Land Association, one instalment of $ 3000 became due to the plaintiff under the contract, which the defendant refused to pay on demand, and also refused to pay an assessment then due or about to become due.
The plaintiff was permitted to testify, against the defendant's objection and exception, that his purpose in making said contract with the defendant was to effect a sale of his interest in the Dorchester Association property, and that the $ 5000 bonus or profit was entirely on account of the Worthington property.
It appeared also that the defendant had made payments on the Dorchester Land Association property, amounting to the sum of $ 4800, before the above mentioned instalment had become due.
It further appeared that the legal title to the land belonging to said association was in trustees, and that the plaintiff's interest therein was the right to receive a certain portion of the net proceeds of the sale of said land.
Upon these facts, the defendant insisted that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief in equity, on the ground that he had a full, adequate and complete remedy at common law.
The judge decided that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree according to the terms of his bill, and that a decree should be entered accordingly. From this decision the defendant appealed; and the case is accordingly reported for the consideration of the full court, on said demurrer, and all the above questions of law and fact.
Demurrer sustained, and the Bill dismissed.
R. D. Smith & A. E. Jones, for the plaintiff.
A. C. Clark, for the defendant.
Jurisdiction in equity is conferred upon this court by the Gen. Sts. c. 113, § 2, to hear and determine "suits for the specific performance of written contracts by and against either party to the contract, and his heirs, devisees, executors, administrators and assigns." The power extends alike to written contracts of all descriptions; but its exercise is restricted by the proviso, "when the parties have not a plain, adequate and complete remedy at the common law." This proviso has always been so construed and applied as to make it a test, in each particular case, by which to determine whether jurisdiction in equity shall be entertained. If the only relief to which the plaintiff would be entitled in equity is the same in measure and kind as that which he might obtain in a suit at law, he can have no standing upon the equity side of the court; unless his remedy at law is doubtful, circuitous, or complicated by multiplicity of parties having different interests. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 6 Pick. 376, 396. Sears v. Boston, 16 Pick. 357. Wilson v. Leishman, 12 Met. 316, 321. Hilliard v. Allen, 4 Cush. 532, 535. Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen 59. Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24, 27. Ward v. Peck, 114 Mass.
In contracts for the sale of personal property jurisdiction in equity is rarely entertained, although the only remedy at law may be the recovery of damages, the measure of which is the difference between the market value of the property at the time of the breach, and the price as fixed by the contract. The reason is, that, in regard to most articles of personal property, the commodity and its market value are supposed to be substantially equivalent, each to the other, so that they may be readily interchanged. The seller may convert his rejected goods into money; the purchaser, with his money, may obtain similar goods; each presumably at the market price; and the difference between that and the contract price, recoverable at law, will be full indemnity. Jones v. Boston Mill Corporation, 4 Pick. 507, 511. Adderley v. Dixon, 1 Sim. & Stu. 607. Harnett v. Yeilding, 2 Sch. & Lef. 548, 553. Adams Eq. 83. Fry Spec. Perf. §§ 12, 29.
It is otherwise with fixed property like real estate. Compensation in damages, measured by the difference in price as ascertained by the market value, and by the contract, has never been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parkway, Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co.
...in Massachusetts was in some respects less broad than that exercised by the courts of England and of other States. Jones v. Newhall, 115 Mass. 244, 15 Am.Rep. 97;Suter v. Matthews, 115 Mass. 253;Frue v. Loring, 120 Mass. 507, 509, 510. Ever since that statutory limitation was removed by St.......
-
Parkway, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Company& Others.
...that jurisdiction in Massachusetts was in some respects less broad than that exercised by the courts of England and of other States. Jones v. Newhall, 115 Mass. Suter v. Matthews, 115 Mass. 253 . Frue v. Loring, 120 Mass. 507 , 509, 510. Ever since that statutory limitation was removed by S......
-
McCann v. Randall
... ... Plaintiff's bill must negative such possibility ... Travis v. Tyler, 7 Gray, 146; Jones v ... Newhall, 115 Mass. 244. The judgment of the court of ... commissioners of Alabama claims was equivalent to an ... appropriation by ... ...
-
Dow v. N. R.R.
...indemnity for nonfulfillment of a contract for the sale or purchase of land as to justify the refusal of relief in equity." Jones v. Newhall, 115 Mass. 244, 248. The vendor's payment of the difference is not regarded by the law as a full, sufficient reparation for the purchaser who made the......