Norris v. Fox
| Decision Date | 03 March 1891 |
| Citation | 45 F. 406 |
| Parties | NORRIS v. FOX et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
W. O. L. Jewett, for complainant.
Harrison & Mahan and R. P. Giles, for defendants.
THAYER, J., (after stating the facts as above.)
Specific performance cannot be enforced in this instance for want of mutuality in the contract, so far as the remedy for its enforcement is concerned. The rule is fundamental that a contract will not be specifically enforced unless it is obligatory on both parties, nor unless both parties at the time it is executed have the right to resort to equity for its specific performance. Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 340; Bodine v. Glading, 21 Pa.St. 50; Duvall v. Myers, 2 Md.Ch. 401; German v. Machin, 6 Paige, 288; Boucher v. Vanbuskirk, 2 A.K.Marsh. 345; Duff v. Hopkins, 33 F. 599-608. And where a contract when executed is not specifically enforceable against one of the parties, he cannot, by subsequent performance of those conditions that could not be specifically enforced, put himself in a position to demand specific enforcement against the other party. Hope v. Hope, 8 De Gex, M.& G. 731-736; Fry, Spec. Perf. (3d Ed., Amer. Notes,) Sec. 443. In the case at bar the agreement of Norris to procure a warranty deed of land at the time belonging to another, was of that nature that only an action at law would lie for a breach of the agreement. As Fox could not compel specific performance of the contract when made, and only had his remedy at law by a suit for damages, the complainant must resort to the same remedy.
The bill is dismissed, without prejudice to the complainant's right to sue at law.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. Turner
...34 Idaho 103, 199 P. 652, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 391, note; Wit-Keets-Poo v. Rowton, 26 Idaho 193, 152 P. 1064; 25 R. C. L., sec. 33; Norris v. Fox, 45 F. 406; Paige on Contracts, 3308, 3318; Lunt v. Lorschiered, 285 Ill. 589, 121 N.E. 237; Banbury v. Arnold, 91 Cal. 606, 27 P. 935; C. S., sec.......
-
General Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.
...ground for denying equitable relief to the plaintiff against a violation of the contract by the defendant.' See, also, Norris v. Fox et al. (C.C.) 45 F. 406; Duff v. Hopkins (D.C.) 33 F. In Strang v. Richmond P. & C.R. Co., 101 Fed.,at page 517, 41 C.C.A.,at page 480, the court said: 'An ex......
-
Blanton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.
...where compensation can be had, and the part not conveyed is not essential to that which is. It is evident, therefore, that the case of Norris v. Fox is applicable to the case in hand, either in the point decided, or in the ground upon which it was so decided, even conceding that it was corr......
-
Johnson v. Hurley
...Gladding, 21 Pa. St. 50; Duvall v. Meyers, 2 Md. Ch. 401; German v. Machin, 6 Paige, 288; Boucher v. Vanbuskirk, 2 A. K. Marsh. 345; Norris v. Fox, 45 F. 406. And where a contract not specifically enforcable at the time when made, one of the parties cannot, by subsequent performance of thos......