Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee Land Co.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1897 |
| Parties | CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. EAST TENNESSEE LAND CO. et al. (FORD, EATON & CO., Interveners.) SCHUMACHER et al. v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
White & Martin, for Ford, Eaton & Co.,
Geo. W Easley and Prichard & Sizer, for East Tennessee Land Co.
In this case the petitioners seek to recover the purchase price of some land which the petitioners claim to have sold to the East Tennessee Land Company by executory contract prior to the commencement of this suit, and for the enforcement of an alleged vendor's lien upon the land so sold. The master to whom this and other matters were referred has reported against the petitioner, placing his decision upon the lack of a good title in the petitioners. As appears from the facts disclosed, there are several questions of doubt in regard to whether the petitioners are entitled to recover, and if so whether upon the footing of the contract for the contract price, or whether they would be limited to damages consisting of the difference between the contract price and the actual value of the land. The petition cannot be treated as one for the specific performance of the contract, for that has already been denied by a former decree of this court, so that their footing here must stand upon the right in a common-law suit to recover damages to which they may be entitled, that remedy being reserved to them. There is some controversy in the decision of the courts upon the question whether a vendor, upon tendering a deed which is refused by the vendee can recover the contract price; and in some quarters it is held that, inasmuch as a common-law court has no authority to compel a specific performance, and the result of the suit will be to leave the title in the vendor, the proper measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the value of the land. This question arises in the present instance, for there would be no vendor's lien for mere unliquidated damages resulting from the refusal of the vendee to go on with the contract. Practically, the present suit to compel payment of the purchase money upon tender of conveyance, with a prayer for the enforcement of a vendor's lien, amounts to a suit for specific performance. Another question of doubt and of difficulty is whether the execution of a deed by one of two executors in whom a former owner of the land vested a power of sale was valid, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace Bank & Trust Co. v. First National Bank of Fairfield
...Ency. Law, 375; Spader v. Mural Decoration Mfg. Co., 47 N.J. Eq. 18, 20 A. 378; Malcomson v. Wappoo Mills, 88 F. 680; Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee L. Co., 79 F. 19.) motion for inspection of the bank records was too broad, sweeping and indefinite. (State v. District Court, 27 Mont. 4......
-
Coy v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.
... ... v ... McNulta, 77 F. 700, 23 C.C.A. 415; Central Trust Co ... v. East Tennessee Land Co. et al. (C.C.) 79 F. 19; ... ...
-
Baker v. Central Trust Co. of New York
... ... adequate relief than would damages at law. Such contracts do ... not run with the land or impose any lien upon the property ... They convey no title in the railroad itself, or any ... ...
-
Pederson v. North Yakima & East Selah Irr. Co.
... ... Its object was to sell ... arid land, together with water for its irrigation. Its assets ... passed into ... appointment of the receiver. 34 Cyc. 266; Central Trust ... Co. v. East Tennessee Land Co. (C. C.) 79 F. 19; ... ...