Nagle v. Newton

• Decision Date: 11 December 1872
• Citation: 63 Va. 814
• Parties: NAGLE v. NEWTON.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

63 Va. 814

NAGLE v. NEWTON.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

December 11, 1872

N sues J in equity to rescind, or enforce specific execution of a contract, for the sale of land by N to J. J answers, not objecting to specific execution, but insisting that he shall be compensated for injuries to which he has been subjected by the failure of N to comply with his contract, and by the intermeddling of N and his agents with J's possession of the land and the property upon it. HELD:

1. The case being a proper case for decreeing specific execution of the contract, the court has jurisdiction, as ancillary thereto, to decree compensation to J for the damages he has sustained by the improper acts of N and his agents.

2. The damages may be ascertained either by a commissioner, or by an issue of quantum damnificatus to be tried at the bar of the court.

This was a suit in equity brought in February 1866, in the Circuit court of Prince William county, and afterwards removed to the Circuit court of Alexandria, by Isaac Newton, formerly of Pennsylvania, but then of Washington city, against John Nagle, Jr., to rescind a contract for the sale by Newton to Nagle, of a tract of land in the county of Prince William; or if the contract could not be rescinded, then for the specific execution. Nagle answered and did not object to the specific execution of the contract; but insisted that he had been subjected to great losses by the failure on the part of Newton, to complete the contract at the proper time; and by the improper conduct of Newton, and his agents in getting possession of the land, and using or disposing of the personal property which Nagle had put upon the land, and injuring the buildings, & c., upon it. The material facts, as they appear from the pleadings and proofs, are as follows:

Isaac Newton was the owner of a tract of land of three thousand acres, in the county of Prince William, on which there was a deed of trust for $30,000, a part of the purchase money, held by William H. Tayloe and Benjamin O. Tayloe. A part of this debt had been paid by Newton, and the remainder was evidenced by notes, each for two thousand dollars, payable annually. On the 12th of March 1861, Isaac Newton entered into a written contract with John Nagle, Jr., by which he agreed to sell to Nagle twelve hundred and ten acres of this land, to be estimated at twenty-five dollars per acre. And for this land Nagle agreed to give to Newton a mortgage upon it to secure the payment of twelve thousand dollars, payable according to the agreement between Newton and the Tayloes; namely, $2,000 per annum, to pay $500 at the execution of the deed, and give his note for $500, payable in six months from date. To convey to Newton ten houses, situate in Camden, New Jersey, subject to a mortgage of $700 each; two houses eighteen feet front each on Pepper street, Philadelphia, free from all incumbrances, and two ground rents of $1,600 each, on lots situate on Seventh street, above Oxford, clear of all incumbrances. All the above deeds and papers to be delivered as soon as practicable.

In pursuance of this agreement, the deeds were prepared and executed by the parties. Isaac Newton and his son, George Bolton Newton, to whom he had conveyed five hundred acres of the land, executed to Nagle a deed for the twelve hundred and ten acres of land; Nagle executed deeds conveying the property in Camden and Philadelphia, and also the mortgage to secure the $12,000; and a deed of release of the lien for the debt to the Tayloes, was executed by the trustees and Benjamin O. Tayloe, and was forwarded to Edward T. Tayloe who was then residing in the State of Alabama, to be executed by him; but though he received it and executed it, it miscarried on its return, and was found in the dead-letter office at Richmond after the war was over. All the deeds except this last, were placed in the hands of Philip R Fendall, to be held by him as an escrow, until the deed of release from the Tayloes should be executed and ready for delivery. And on the 3d of April 1861, Benjamin O. Tayloe and Isaac Newton entered into a bond to Nagle, in the penalty of $1,000, with condition that the deed of release should be executed and delivered within thirty days.

Nagle was put into possession of the land, and proceeded to make expensive improvements upon it, and took to it a large amount of stock and farming implements, for the purpose of cultivating it extensively; but in 1862, the land still standing in the name of Isaac Newton, it was sequestrated by the Confederate government, as his property; and all the personal property on the place was taken possession of by the officer of that government, and appropriated to the uses of the Confederate government.

When Nagle took possession of the land he found there Lewis Kurtz who had been in the employment of Newton; and Kurtz was employed by Nagle to superintend and manage for him. Subsequently Kurtz seems to have been employed by Newton to hold the land for him. In May 1865, Nagle went to the farm with a number of men who he had employed to work upon the place, taking with him horses, cattle, provisions, & c., and he found Kurtz there, and told him he must move at once, or he would put his goods into the road. Kurtz asked for the delay of a day, which was twice allowed; but after several days his goods, which had been packed up by his family ready to be taken away, were put into the road. Kurtz thereupon applied to the military authorities who were stationed in the neighborhood, and a squad of soldiers were sent, who sent off the men brought by Nagle, gave possession of the premises to Kurtz, and turned over to him the personal property of Nagle which was there. And Kurtz continued to hold possession of the premises, and use and dispose of the personal property, until March 1866, when he was ousted by a proceeding by unlawful detainer.

Nagle filed with his answer a statement of the moneys which he said he had expended upon the land and had incurred, either in paying Newton or in defending himself against his disturbances, a large part of which was lost, owing either to the failure of Newton to comply with his contract, or by his improper intermeddling with his possession and enjoyment of the premises through the instrumentality of Kurtz, and otherwise. This statement amounted to $41,801.90. And he insisted that he should be allowed, in the adjustment of their contract for the land, the amount of the losses he had thus sustained.

In June 1866, the court made a decree referring the cause to a commissioner to take various accounts, and directed the deeds which had been delivered as escrows to be deposited with the clerk of the court. The commissioner reported that after crediting the mortgage of $12,000 which Nagle was to give, there would be due from Newton to the Tayloes $6,169, and that the net rents received by Nagle from the property in New Jersey and Philadelphia since the contract was $3,819.68. He reported that Nagle had sustained damage by the intermeddling, & c., of Newton; but he did not state an account or the amount. And for his failure to do so Nagle excepted.

The cause came on to be heard on the 1st of June 1867, when the court made a decree to enforce the specific execution of the contract betweeen Newton and Nagle, and directed the different deeds to be delivered, including the deed of release from the Tayloes; and that Nagle should pay to Newton $3,819.68, the net rents aforesaid; and that each party should pay his own costs. And being of opinion that for any injury Nagle had sustained by the misconduct of Newton, he must seek his redress in another forum, no decree was made on that point. From this decree Nagle obtained an appeal to the District court of Appeals at Fredericksburg; where the decree, so far as it enforced the specific performance of the contract and the payment of the rents by Nagle to Newton, was affirmed; but it was ordered that an account should be taken of the damages sustained by Nagle by the acts of Newton or his agents. And thereupon Nagle applied to this court for an appeal; which was allowed.

Neeson, for the appellant.

F. L. Smith and Wells, for the appellee.

OPINION

CHRISTIAN J.

The court is of opinion that there is no error in the decree of the Circuit court of Alexandria county, so far as the said court decreed a specific performance of the agreement for the sale of certain real estate entered into between Isaac Newton and John Nagle, Jr.

The bill and the undisputed facts in the record present a clear case for specific performance. The answer of the defendant does not resist a specific performance of the contract entered into between him and the plaintiff; but claims that he is entitled to compensation for damages sustained by him arising out of the acts of the plaintiff (Newton) and his agents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land bought by him of said Newton. The defendant does not seek a recision of the contract; but expresses his willingness to perform it on his part, and his desire to have the same specifically executed whenever the court shall award to him compensation for the damages he has sustained in consequence of the acts of the plaintiff and his agents.

The whole controversy in the case, which has been one of protracted and bitter litigation, is now narrowed down to the single point (as the case is presented before this court) of a claim on the...