Partt and of Others v. Carroll
| Decision Date | 16 March 1814 |
| Citation | 8 Cranch 471,3 L.Ed. 627,12 U.S. 471 |
| Parties | PARTT AND OF OTHERS v. CARROLL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case appears to be fully stated by the chief justice in delivering the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia, whereby a bill brought by the Plaintiffs for the specific performance of a contract, was dismissed. The material facts are these:
Daniel Carroll, the Defendant, was, previous to the establishment of the city of Washington, proprietor of a large tract of land, part of which lies within its present limits. This part was conveyed to trustees, one moiety for the use of the public, and the other moiety for the use of the said Carroll.
After the place for the seat of government had been selected, and the boundaries of the city marked out, the legislature of Maryland authorized the appointment of commissioners to superintend the affairs thereof, and among other powers authorized them to divide the lots in the said city between the public and the original proprietors, and declared that such divisions made in a specified form and certified by them should re-vest in the original proprietors the legal estate whereof they were formerly seized in the lots and squares assigned to them respectively. The commissioners were also authorized to sell the lots retained for the public use, and on receiving the purchase money, to convey to the purchasers. On the 23d of September, 1793, James Greenleaf purchased from the commissioners three thousand lots lying in that part of the city which had been conveyed by Carroll; and on the 24th of December, 1793, James Greenleaf and Robert Morris made from the commissioners an additional purchase of three thousand lots. Neither the purchase money being then paid, nor a division made, the legal title remained in the trustees, and was a security for the purchase money. These contracts, if executed by conveyances, would have vested in Greenleaf and Morris all the public lots which were intermingled with those hereinafter stated to have been purchased by Greenleaf from Carroll.
On the 26th day of September, in the year 1973, the said Daniel Carroll and James Greenleaf entered into articles, whereby Daniel Carroll covenanted in consideration of 5l. and of the covenants thereinafter mentioned, to convey to the said Greenleaf twenty lots of ground in the city of Washington, fronting on South Capitol street, in all convenient speed after the lots in that part of the said street should be divided between the said Carroll and the commissioners of the public buildings. The said conveyances to be on condition to be void in case the said Greenleaf should not, within three years from this date, erect a good brick house on each lot at least 25 feet front, 40 feet deep and two stories high. And the said Carroll further covenanted, that after the division, to be made of the land lying between the fork of the canal, between him and the commissioners should be completed, he would sell to the said Greenleaf every other lot belonging, after such division, to the said Carroll, for the consideration afterwards mentioned in the said articles; and would lay out the whole amount of the purchase money, when received, in building houses as near as well might be to those erected and erecting by the said Greenleaf; and in case of selling any of his property, he would cause buildings, to the amount of the purchase money, to be erected thereon. The said Greenleaf agreed to erect, on each of the first mentioned twenty lots, one good brick house, at least 25 feet front, 40 feet deep, and two stories high, within three years from the date, and to re-convey any of the said 20 lots not built upon within the time, and pay 100l. for each of the said lots not so built upon; to pay 30l. for each of the other lots to be purchased; to lay out on the last mentioned lots the sum of 3,000l. within two years, and the further sum of 3,000l. within four years; to pay one half of the amount of the purchase money with interest within two years, and the remainder with interest, within four years. Carroll to make deeds for the last mentioned lots purchased as the money should be paid. The parties bind themselves each to the other in the penal sum of 20,000l.
On the 8th June, 1795, it was agreed between the same parties to change the contract so far as that the said Greenleaf should build twenty brick houses of such description as he should judge proper, provided they are two stories high, and cover an equal extent of ground with the houses before mentioned, and of which the one moiety or ten houses shall be built on the south part of square numbered 651, and the residue on the east side of said square.
In July, 1794, a partial division was made between Carroll and Greenleaf, by which the square No. 651 was allotted to the latter. It was on this square that the twenty houses mentioned in the contracts between the parties were intended to be built.
On the 13th of May, 1796, James Greenleaf, in pursuance of articles made July 10th, 1795, assigned his contract with Carroll to Morris and Nicholson, to whom he also transferred his interest in a large portion of the lots purchased from the commissioners. In the summer of 1796 Morris and Nicholson came to the city of Washington, when a division of the lots was completed, which was reported to the commissioners on the 14th of September, by whom it was then ratified. Twenty brick houses were erected on the square 651, and covered in by the 26th September, 1796, the time specified in the contract. Some of them were completed. In May, 1797, Daniel Carroll entered into the square 651, and took possession of the buildings thereon, which he has held ever since, and has permitted them to be greatly injured.
Morris and Nicholson conveyed their property in the city, to the Plaintiffs, in trust for certain creditors, by deed bearing date the 26th day of June, 1797, and became bankrupts. This bill was filed in December, 1804, claiming a specific performance of the whole contract of September, 1793, or, if the Court should be of opinion that the contract ought to be divided, the Plaintiffs pray for a specific performance of that part of it which respects the twenty lots, on which they say houses have been erected in conformity with their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Funger v. Mayor and Council of Town of Somerset
...the defaulted bonds be turned over to a creditor's committee, the Court said: 'It is true as stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Pratt v. Carroll, 8 Cranch, 471, 475, 3 L.Ed. 627, 'that equity will not relieve where it is impossible to place the parties in the same situation and when the re......
-
City of Detroit v. Detroit and Milwaukee Railroad Co.
... ... by the consent of said Desnoyers and of all others interested ... in said farm, and through proceedings of the administratrix ... of the estate, a ... Bank v. Lyon , 1 Pet. 376; Pratt v. Carroll , ... 8 Cranch 471; Porter v. Dougherty , 1 Casey 405; ... Brashear v. Gratz , 6 Wheat. 533; ... ...
-
Findlay v. Baltimore Trust & Guarantee Co.
...sold." And we may add that this is the well-established law in this country. Grymes v. Sanders, 93 U.S. 55, 23 L.Ed. 798; Pratt v. Carroll, 8 Cranch, 471, 3 L.Ed. 627; Taymon v. Mitchell, 1 Md.Ch. 496; Company v. Campbell & Zell Co., 83 Md. 55, 34 A. 369. We come, then, to the second object......
-
First Trust Joint Stock Land Bank of Chicago v. Hanlon
...to sustain it. See, however, Story's Eq.Jur. 776, Hepburn v. Auld, 5 Cranch, 262 ; Brashier v. Gratz et al., 6 Wheat. 528 ; Pratt and others v. Carroll, 8 Cranch, 471 ; Mitford Eq.Jur. 461, A further statement appearing in this opinion, at page 254, may well be applied to the case before us......