James Cathcart and Jane His Wife, John Woodside, Richard Smith, Richard Harrison, Joseph Anderson, Thomas Tucker, and William Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury, Appellants v. William Robinson, Appellee

• Decision Date: 01 January 1831
• Citation: 8 L.Ed. 120,30 U.S. 264,5 Pet. 264
• Parties: JAMES L. CATHCART AND JANE HIS WIFE, JOHN WOODSIDE, RICHARD SMITH, RICHARD HARRISON, JOSEPH ANDERSON, THOMAS T. TUCKER, AND WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, APPELLANTS, v. WILLIAM ROBINSON, APPELLEE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

30 U.S. 264

5 Pet. 264

8 L.Ed. 120

JAMES L. CATHCART AND JANE HIS WIFE, JOHN WOODSIDE, RICHARD SMITH, RICHARD HARRISON, JOSEPH ANDERSON, THOMAS T. TUCKER, AND WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, APPELLANTS, v. WILLIAM ROBINSON, APPELLEE.

January Term, 1831

APPEAL from the circuit court of the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia.

In the circuit court for the county of Alexandria, the appellant, William Robinson, filed a bill for the specific execution of a contract entered into between him and Mr James Leander Cathcart, on the 10th of September 1822.

The bill was filed in March 1829, and an injunction issued as prayed. Afterwards, in July 1829, the proceedings in the case were removed to Washington, by a bill filed there, in which was incorporated the former bill and other matters, and introducing, as parties, the trustee of Mrs Cathcart; and praying that the injunction may be extended to him, and to the cashier of the bank of the United States, and the officers of the treasury, to prevent the payment over of a fund alleged in the bill to the pledged for the performance of the contract.

The circuit court gave a decree in favour of the complainant, and Mr Cathcart appealed to this court.

The case was argued at January term 1830, by Mr coxe and Mr Key for the appellants, and by Mr Lee and Mr Jones for the appellee. The case was held under advisement, until this term, when:

Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit in chancery brought by the appellee in the court of the United States for the district of Columbia, to enforce the specific performance of a contract entered into between him and James L. Cathcart, one of the appellants, for the sale and purchase of a tract of land, called Howard, lying in the county of Alexandria; and also to subject a claim of the said Cathcart on the United States under the provisions of the eleventh article of the treaty with Spain, signed at Washington on the 22d of February 1819, to the payment of the purchase money.

The agreement, which was executed on the 10th of September 1822, stipulated that Robinson should convey to Cathcart the place called Howard as soon as a proper deed could be made: that Cathcart should pay therefor the sum of eight thousand dollars by instalments; the first payment of five thousand dollars to be made on the 1st of January 1825, and the residue in three equal annual payments, to commence from that time. To secure these payments, Cathcart agreed to execute four bonds, bearing interest from the first day of January 1825; and, as a further security, to execute a deed of trust, with his wife's relinquishment of dower, upon Howard, and likewise on the total amount of his claim on the United States, under the provisions of the eleventh article of the treaty with Spain, signed at Washington on the 22d of February 1819: and the contract concluded with the following words: 'In further confirmation of the said agreement, the parties bind themselves, each to the other in the penal sum of one thousand dollars.'- At the date of this agreement Howard was in possession of a tenant, John T. O. Wilbar, who had a right to hold the premises till the end of the year. Under an arrangement with Cathcart he surrendered possession of the place soon after the purchase was made.

Previous to the contract of the 10th of September 1822, on the 10th of November 1818, James L. Cathcart executed a deed conveying to John Woodside, the father of Mrs Cathcart, for her benefit, all his property, including his claim under the Spanish treaty. This deed conveying wills is recorded in the proper office for the recording of deeds conveying lands in the city of Washington.

The answer of Cathcart resists the claim for the performance of the contract on three grounds.

1. That he was induced to enter it by the fraudulent misrepresentations of the plaintiff.

2. That the price was excessive.

3. That he executed the contract under an impression, sanctioned by the conduct of the plaintiff, that at any time before its completion, he might release himself from it by paying the penalty of one thousand dollars.

The answer of Woodside claims the Spanish fund as trustee for Mrs Cathcart; denies being consulted about the purchase of Howard, or that he was party or privy to the contract; and avers that he never assented to any appropriation of that fund to purchase any estate from Robinson.

The misrepresentations alleged in the answer respect the boundaries of Howard, its value, and its fitness for an academy, the purpose for which it was avowedly purchased.

At the date of the contract Mr Robinson was in possession of a small adjoining tract called Riddle's, his title to which was incomplete, a part of which, comprehending a peach orchard, was within the fence that enclosed Howard. The answer charges that Mr Robinson represented all the land within this fence as being part of the Howard tract.

As this allegation avers new matter, not responsive to the bill, it cannot be regarded unless it be proved. Miss Amelia H. Cathcart deposes to the truth of the statements of conversations when the agreement was executed, which are contained in an affidavit previously made by James Hutton. She adds, 'I likewise am willing to declare on oath, that William Robinson stated that Howard was a beautiful place, that it was remarkably healthy, that it had a great deal of fruit on it, and a fine peach orchard up by the fence, or near the fence that divided Howard from Riddle's place.' She adds, that the family believed that the peach orchard was on Howard, and that the fence which Mr Robinson referred to was the division line between the Howard estate and Riddle's place.

The peculiar language of the witness, that she 'is willing to declare on oath' what William Robinson stated; instead of declaring expressly what he did state; may be an accidental form of expression not entitled to much attention. If we understand the deponent as averring on oath what she declares she is willing to aver on oath, she represents Mr Robinson as saying, that Howard had on it a fine peach orchard near the fence that divided it from Riddle's place. This implies that the fence was the dividing line between the two places, which would be a misrepresentation of boundary.

It is difficult to assign a reason for this voluntary and useless misrepresentation. It is understood to have been made on the day on which the contract was signed. It could not be as an inducement to the contract, because that was formed previously. In a letter of the 9th of September, addressed to Wilbar the tenant, Robinson informs him that the farm is sold to Cathcart, who was extremely desirous to take immediate possession; and he had assured him that Wilbar was willing to accommodate him immediately: he therefore requests Wilbar to deliver possession. The misrepresentation, therefore, at that time could be of no avail. Mr Cathcart in his answer does not aver that it was made at that time. He says that having advertised his desire to purchase a small farm, where he might establish a boarding school, the defendant offered him Howard as a place adapted to his purpose. The complainant afterwards visited this place, but did not see the defendant, who resided at a considerable distance from it. The farm was occupied by a tenant. Mr Cathcart says that, after this visit, Mr Robinson informed him that all the land, between the fence near the brick house (on the place called Riddle's) and the house on Howard, belonged to Howard place. He does not say when this communication was made.

James Hutton, one of the witnesses to the contract, was examined. He deposes expressly and particularly to the conversation respecting the penalty of one thousand dollars, but is silent as to that respecting the boundary of Howard.

In his letter of the 17th of August 1822, in which Mr Robinson states the terms on which he will sell Howard, he says, 'The forty acres adjoining I would sell to you for two thousand dollars,' &c. 'This is the place whereon the brick house, built for a wagon tavern, stands. It has a good well of water at the door, and orchard of fine fruit.' That part of the letter which respects Howard is silent respecting fruit.

On the 29th of October Robinson addressed a letter to Cathcart stating, that he had performed his part of the agreement, and requesting Cathcart to call on Mr Jones who would deliver him a deed regularly executed for Howard on receiving the papers which were to be executed on the part of Cathcart. This letter was answered on the 14th of December. Mr Cathcart expresses his willingness to give the security proposed, but objects to incurring any expense in the preparation of the papers. It is answered more particularly on the 8th of February 1823. In this letter, he says, he had called twice on Mr Jones, but had found that gentleman too much occupied to attend to the business in question. He adds, 'I am in no hurry for the deed, although the plot of the land would be of service, and would indicate what part of the land appertains to Howard.' 'The land' is a term which must apply to Howard and Riddle's place; because both were the property of Mr Robinson and had been occupied by Wilbar. The expression is with difficulty to be reconciled to an opinion that the fence was the dividing line between them. The same inference may be drawn from Mr Cathcart's letter of the 24th of August 1822, announcing his determination to make an offer for Howard not differing essentially from the proposals of Mr Robinson. After expressing his expectation of being permitted to hold Riddle's place as Wilbar held it, and that he should be preferred as a purchaser, on the same terms, to any other person when Mr Robinson should complete his title to it, he adds, as a proviso to his offer, 'that if I do not purchase it, I shall not be put to any expense in the division and fencing off the said.' The word 'said' must...