Sease v. Cleveland Cooperative Stove & Hollow Ware Foundry Co.
Decision Date | 23 November 1897 |
Parties | Sease et al., Appellants, v. Cleveland Cooperative Stove and Hollow Ware Foundry Company et al |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. -- Hon. James T. Neville, Judge.
Affirmed.
White & McCammon for appellants.
(1) The plaintiffs brought the proper action in this case and sought proper remedy. Lilly v. Tobbein, 103 Mo. 488; Michael v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 610; Newmeyer v Railroad, 52 Mo. 81. (2) Ejectment could not be maintained in this case because it is not a conditional estate. Messersmith v. Messersmith, 22 Mo. 369; O'Brien v. Wagner, 94 Mo. 96. (3) It has always been held that equity will enforce the specific performance of covenants similar to this. Waterman on Spec. Perf. [1881 Ed.], secs. 10, 11, 21, 29, 30, 110, 115; Grubbs v Sharkey, 20 S.E. 784; Zipp v. Walker, 40 N.Y.S 325; White v. University L. Co., 49 Mo.App. 450; Cook v. Bartholomew, 22 A. 444; Clark v. Brookfield, 81 Mo. 503. (4) There is no principle of equity or law which permits a party to escape the obligations of a contract on the grounds that he has done something else that is not required by the contract or which may have been incidentally necessary from the performance of it. (5) It is evident throughout the record that it never was the intention to carry on a permanent factory, but that from the start Baldwin intended it as a real estate deal. (6) The trial judge could not have taken into consideration the permanent improvements to the real estate, and if he did it was not proper to do so, because the only improvements to the real estate was the moulding room, costing about $ 9,000, and it was entirely finished when the contract was entered and is mentioned in the contract as being already performed, so that the conditions upon which the reconveyance should be made depended entirely upon the number of workmen employed. (7) It can not be said that there was an approach to a substantial compliance with the terms of the contract. The contract provided for fifty moulders continuously and the average was less than one half, and part of the time only on one half time. It provided for a force of one hundred workmen of all grades, and the average must have been less than forty. Sult v. Waran, 38 N.E. 291.
T. K. Skinker and C. R. Skinker for respondents.
(1) This is an attempt to enforce a forfeiture, not only of the land conveyed to defendant company, but also of very valuable improvements put on it by the company. Courts of equity do not enforce forfeitures, but leave parties to their remedies at law. Messersmith v. Messersmith, 22 Mo. 369; Towne v. Bowers, 81 Mo. 497; 1 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., sec. 459; Railroad v. Railroad, 57 Pa. St. 65. (2) The seventeen plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for the three hundred and twenty subscribers. Story, Eq. Plead. [10 Ed.], secs. 94, 96; Jones v. Garcia Del Rio, 1 Turn. & Rus. 297; Attorney-General v. Heelis, 2 Sim. & Stu. 76; 1 Dan. Ch. Prac. [6 Am. Ed.] 238, side p. 243; Bainbridge v. Burton, 2 Beav. 539; Kerrison v. Stewart, 93 U.S. 155; Jewett v. Tucker, 139 Mass. 577. (3) As an attempt to enforce specific performance of a contract, this suit was properly dismissed. The exercise of this jurisdiction always rests largely in the sound discretion of the court, and that discretion was wisely exercised in this instance. Veth v. Gierth, 92 Mo. 97; 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., sec. 1404.
The petition states that in the year 1890 plaintiffs, who are seventeen in number, and about three hundred other citizens of the city of Springfield, purchased, at a cost of $ 15,000, and caused to be conveyed to defendant corporation, a tract of land in said city for the purpose of inducing it to establish, maintain and operate a stove factory thereon. That in consideration thereof, on the eighteenth day of July, 1890, said defendant executed and delivered to one B. U. Massey, as trustee for the said citizens, a written agreement which is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial