Staples v. Mullen
| Decision Date | 20 June 1907 |
| Citation | 196 Mass. 132,81 N.E. 877 |
| Parties | STAPLES v. MULLEN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John
F Lynch, for appellant.
Jesse W. Morton, for appellee.
This is a suit in equity to compel the specific performance by the defendant of his written agreement with the plaintiff to purchase certain real estate. A decree was entered in the superior court ordering such performance, and, the evidence having been taken by a commissioner, the defendant appealed. The appeal brings before us all questions of fact and law raised at the trial, but as no findings of fact or rulings of law were made by the trial court, the only question now open is whether upon all the evidence the decree was plainly wrong. Jennings v. Demmon, 194 Mass. 108, 80 N.E 471. By sealed agreement in writing on July 13, 1906, the plaintiff agreed to sell and the defendant to buy certain land in Somerville for a stipulated price, the deed 'to be delivered and the consideration paid at the registry of deeds * * * at 12 o'clock noon of the 1st of August, 1906. * * *' There was evidence, not contradicted, tending to show that, a day or two before August 1st, the defendant called upon the brokers, who represented the plaintiff, and also upon the plaintiff himself, and asked for an extension of time until August 15th, saying that he had not yet been able to raise the purchase price and that if such extension would be granted, he would within a day or two pay down to the brokers $100. The extension was granted, but the defendant did not pay the $100. On August 13th, the brokers sent a letter to the defendant requesting the additional deposit or the immediate completion of the sale by passing the papers. To this letter no answer was made, but at about that time the defendant said to one of the firm of brokers acting for the plaintiff that he was really buying the property for some one else, who was finding fault with it, and later, in the early part of the September following, the defendant stated to the brokers that he should not take the property. It was agreed that the title was sufficient.
On this uncontradicted evidence, no other reasonable conclusion could have been reached than one compelling a decree for the plaintiff. The contract was a mutual one. The plaintiff under it was no more strongly bound to deliver the deed than the defendant was to pay the money. Both acts were to be performed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forman v. Gadouas
...of such agreements is required by chancery courts in the absence of special circumstances rendering it inequitable. Staples v. Mullen, 196 Mass. 132, 81 N. E. 877;Noyes v. Bragg, 220 Mass. 106, 109, 107 N. E. 669;Morse v. Strober, 233 Mass. 223, 123 N. E. 780;Dennett v. Norwood Housing Asso......
-
Olszewski v. Sardynski
... ... Whitney, 167 Mass. 550 ... Conley v. Finn, 171 Mass. 70 ... Chauncey v. Leominster, 172 ... Mass. 340 ... Cawley v. Jean, 189 Mass. 220 ... Staples v ... Mullen, 196 Mass. 132 ... Close v. Martin, 208 Mass. 236 ... Mansfield v. Wiles, 221 Mass. 75 ... King v. Connors, 222 Mass ... 261 ... Morse ... ...
-
Carchidi v. Kalayjian
...77 N. E. 831;Jennings v. Demmon, 194 Mass. 108, 113, 80 N. E. 471;Elliott v. Baker, 194 Mass. 518, 523, 80 N. E. 450;Staples v. Mullen, 196 Mass. 132, 134, 81 N. E. 877. That amplification has been thought to savor somewhat of prolixity and the briefer form of the rescript here in issue has......
-
Dennett v. Norwood Hous. Ass'n, Inc.
...or tender the stipulated price, this objection does not go to the jurisdiction. Irvin v. Gregory, 13 Gray, 215, 218;Staples v. Mullen, 196 Mass. 132, 133, 81 N. E. 877;Pearlstein v. Novitch, 239 Mass. 228, 131 N. E. 853;Telfener v. Russ, 162 U. S. 170, 16 Sup. Ct. 695, 40 L. Ed. 930. The no......