Robert Barry, Appellant v. Griffith Coombe, Appellee

Decision Date01 January 1828
Citation1 Pet. 640,26 U.S. 640,7 L.Ed. 295
PartiesROBERT BARRY, APPELLANT, v. GRIFFITH COOMBE, APPELLEE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The bill charged, that this paper, each party having a copy, was, for the purposes of mutual security, delivered to Daniel Carroll, Esq. of Duddington, who was a creditor of the partnership.

It was further alleged, that the complainant went on to do and perform all that he had assumed and undertaken under the agreement and settlement; that he took possession of the premises on the Eastern Branch, and has laid out and expended large sums of money in the repairs and improvements thereof; and that although he has repeatedly made efforts to obtain from the defendant, a conveyance of the property, so agreed to be conveyed to him by the defendant, it has not been made.

The bill then prays the specific relief to which the complainant alleges himself entitled in equity, under the contract; and the benefit of such a recovery, as he might have at law, by attachment or otherwise, for the debt due to him as stated in the account.

Among the documents contained in the record, is the following letter from the complainant, to the defendant, and which by the affidavit of John P. Ingle, was proved to have been delivered to the defendant on the 5th of April 1822.

Washington City, March 26, 1822.

Mr. ROBERT BARRY.

Sir—It is now time that I should have your final answer, whether you will execute the contract made between us in presence of Mr. Carroll, for the conveyance of your moiety of the house, wharf, and premises on the Eastern Branch, and for the payment and security of the balance due me in money. For this purpose I have authorized Mr. John P. Ingle to call on you in my name, and receive your conveyance, a form of which he will present you, which you will please execute, and acknowledge in due form, so as to make it effectual here. Please also pay to Mr. Ingle the instalment of $500, due in September last, with interest from 27th September 1820. Please also to execute and deliver to Mr. Ingle your two notes for the other instalments, drafts of which he will present you.

I also require of you the surrender of J. D. Barry's draft, endorsed by me for $1000, which had been discounted in the Bank of Washington, and which you promised to take up and release me from. I must notify you, that if you persist in refusing to comply with the terms of your contract, according to your pledged faith in presence of the respectable witness above mentioned, I shall hold you accountable in money, for the whole balance due me according to our settlement, and shall merely hold the house, wharf, &c. which you were to have conveyed to me, as collateral security for the entire balance ascertained by that settlement, and for the expenses since laid out in repairs and improvements of the same, under the faith of your contract.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

GRIFFITH COOMBE.

The defendant, Robert Barry, denies in his answer, the liabilities to which, by the bill of the complainant, he is said to have been under as connected with the tanyard, and the concern with James D. Barry; and, after stating other matters, not necessary to be inserted, admits, in the language of the answer, that in the year 1820, he had a conversation with the complainant about settling their accounts, 'including the debt alleged to have been secured by the pretended bill of sale aforesaid, and the complainant then proposed to purchase from this defendant, his undivided moiety of the lots and wharf aforesaid, and that the amount of purchase money should be considered as a payment to the complainant, in part of the amount which he then alleged was owing to him; and the defendant, at the request of the complainant, who alleged the badness of his handwriting as an excuse for making that request, copied from a written memorandum furnished by the complainant, the statement of the account referred to, in which the defendant's name was written by him, only for the purpose of stating him as debtor to the complainant, in compliance with his request, not as signing any contract or agreement. And that the said statement so written by him, at the instance and request of the complainant, being signed by kim, was delivered to this defendant, for the purpose of considering whether, after due examination, he would assent to the terms therein proposed, and was not deposited in the hands of Daniel Carroll, as the complainant alleges. For this defendant declares, that he did not then assent to the correctness of the several charges and estimates in the said statement, although he expressed his willingness to sell his undivided moiety of the said wharf and premises for the price proposed by the complainant, if this defendant should be satisfied, on examination, that he would actually receive a compensation fully equal in value to the said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • Harper v. Pauley
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1954
    ...if it appears that the vender has but one such building or tract of land. Fish v. Hubbard['s Adm'rs], 21 Wend. [N.Y., 651] 652; Barry v. Coombe, 1 Pet. 640 ; Robeson v. Hornbaker, 2 Green ch. [3 N.J.Eq.] 60; Warren v. Syme, 7 W.Va. 474, 'The agreement or receipt 'E' refers to the land as th......
  • Seifert v. Lanz
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 26, 1914
    ... ... Koeppler and W. S. Lauder, for appellant ...          Until ... delivery, the ... 663, 54 S.E. 679; Haynes v. Griffith, 16 Idaho 280, ... 101 P. 728; Hogueland v ... Co. 63 Iowa 312, 19 N.W. 224; Barry v. Coombe, ... 1 Pet. 640, 650, 7 L.Ed. 295, ... ...
  • State v. Hill
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1896
    ... ... Brillhart, 17 Ill. 354; Barry v. Coombe, 1 Peters ... [U.S.] 640; Palmer v ... Ill. 367; Bowman v. Griffith, 35 Neb. 361.) ...          The law ... ...
  • State v. Hill
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1896
    ...v. Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502;Fulshear v. Randon, 18 Tex. 275;Wise v. Ray, 3 Greene, 430;McConnell v. Brillhart, 17 Ill. 359;Barry v. Coombe, 1 Pet. 640;Palmer v. Grant, 4 Conn. 389;Quin v. Sterne, 26 Ga. 223;Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 546;Hall v. Lafayette Co., 69 Miss. 529, 13 South. 38;McLeod v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT