Sims v. Vanmeter Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1910
• Docket Number: 14,121
• Citation: 51 So. 459,96 Miss. 449
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE W. SIMS v. VANMETER LUMBER COMPANY

51 So. 459

96 Miss. 449

GEORGE W. SIMS v. VANMETER LUMBER COMPANY

No. 14,121

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 28, 1910

FROM the chancery court of Quitman county, HON. MANUEL E. DENTON Chancellor.

The lumber company, appellee, was complaint in the court below Sims, appellant, was defendant there. From a decree in complainant's favor overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction, defendant appealed to the supreme court.

Sims the appellant, Vanmeter Lumber Company, appellee, and the Smith Lumber Company, entered into an agreement to construct a tramroad for the purpose of carrying logs and lumber from the land of each of the parties to the main line of a railroad. By the terms of this agreement the expense of constructing and maintaining the road was apportioned among the three parties. The road extended from the railroad through the lands of the Smith Lumber Company, next through the lands of the Vanmeter Lumber Company, and thence to the land of Sims. Soon after the execution of the contract, work was begun upon the construction, and proceeded for some months, when there was a disagreement, and Sims declined to put any more money into the enterprise unless certain concessions were made. Thereupon, by a subsequent agreement the construction of the tramway was turned over to Sims; it being agreed that each party would contribute his portion of the cost. After the appellee, who was complainant in the court below, had gotten the use of the tramway for some time there was some disagreement about transportation charges, and the complainant declined to pay the amount claimed as due from it. The defendant Sims, who was managing the tramway, refused further services unless settlement should be made. Thereupon the complainant instituted this suit in chancery for a mandatory injunction to compel defendant to render the service, and a preliminary injunction was granted.

Reversed.

St. John Waddell, for appellant.

The injunction in this case should have been dissolved in toto by the chancellor, because the complainant had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. Concisely stated, complainant's rights under its bill were simply a claim for damages for an alleged breach of contract, and while the pleader states in the bill that those damages are irreparable, yet this is a mere conclusion of the pleader, and all the damages alleged by complainant in its bill are shown to be susceptible of definite ascertainment, and a recovery could be had for same at law upon proof of the breach of contract. Complainant does not allege in its bill that the defendant is insolvent, or that he is unable to respond in damages for the alleged breach of the contract. Bomer Bros. v. Canada, 79 Miss. 222, 30 So. 638; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Payne, 93 Miss. 50, 46 So. 405; Electric Light Co. v. Railroad Co., 19 So. 721.

The bill seeks the specific performance of a contract in reference to personal property, and it is well established that while there are some exceptional cases in which equity will decree the specific performance of certain contracts for the delivery of chattels, yet they are very exceptional cases, and in no instance has the rule been extended to the specific performance of a contract for personal service in the handling and operating of personal property.

It is also now well settled in this state that equity will not decree specific performance of contracts for building and repairing houses. Bomer Bros. v. Canada, 79 Miss. 222, 30 So. 638.

It is not at all a proper thing for a chancery court to decree specific performance of contracts calling for personal service, and which would require the daily superintendence of a chancery court in enforcing its...