Curran v. Holyoke Water Power Co.

• Decision Date: 23 October 1874
• Citation: 116 Mass. 90
• Parties: Terence L. Curran v. The Holyoke Water Power Company
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

116 Mass. 90

Terence L. Curran v. The Holyoke Water Power Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

October 23, 1874

Hampden. Bill in equity to enforce specific performance of a contract for the sale of a parcel of land in Holyoke. The case was reserved by Morton, J., for the consideration of the full court, upon the bill, answer and a report of a master and is stated in the opinion.

Bill Dismissed.

M. P Knowlton, for the plaintiff.

N. A Leonard, for the defendant.

Wells, J. Morton & Endicott, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Wells J.

The plaintiff seeks to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale and conveyance to him of a parcel of land for a building lot in Holyoke. That such an agreement was made is clearly proved and admitted; also that the plaintiff has paid the full consideration, has gone into possession, and has erected a substantial building upon the lot, in good faith, relying upon the permission of the defendant that he should do so without waiting for the delivery of a deed. The bargain was for a lot with its front upon Park Street, between Adams and Sargeant streets, and adjoining a lot previously sold by the defendant to one McCabe. The plaintiff claims that his lot extends to a line which would leave Park Street fifty feet wide. The defendant contends that the front line should be ten feet further back, leaving Park Street sixty feet wide; and is ready to convey to the plaintiff the lot so bounded.

The master, to whom the case was referred to find and report the facts, does not find what the actual agreement was in this particular; but reports that "At the time of making said bargain a plan was shown the plaintiff of the lots, on which the line of Park Street was exhibited" drawn so as to make Park Street sixty feet wide, measuring by the scale. He also reports other facts and circumstances from which it might be inferred that the plaintiff supposed his purchase included the ten feet in dispute; and perhaps also that such was the understanding and intention of both parties. But, in the absence of any direct finding of the master upon the point, we do not think the facts and circumstances reported by him, establish the claim of the plaintiff, that such was the original agreement, with that degree of certainty which is required for a decree of specific performance by a conveyance of the land.

It appears however that, subsequently to the oral agreement, the engineer of the defendant, being directed for that purpose by the defendant, at the plaintiff's request, staked out the lot for him, in accordance with his present claim, and he proceeded to erect a building upon the front line so indicated. A deed and mortgage back were prepared and executed; but the deed has...