William Watts and Arthur Watts Executors, and William Watts, Arthur Watts, Joseph Scott and Elizabeth His Wife, Heirs and Legal Representatives of John Watts, Deceased Appellants v. William Waddle and Alexander Waddle Administrators, and Alexander Waddle, and William, John Lucy, Edward and Argus Waddle, Infants By Benjamin Leonard Their Next Friend, Children and Heirs of John Waddle, Deceased and William Lamb

• Decision Date: 01 January 1832
• Citation: 6 Pet. 389,31 U.S. 389,8 L.Ed. 437
• Parties: WILLIAM W. WATTS AND ARTHUR WATTS'S EXECUTORS, AND WILLIAM W. WATTS, ARTHUR WATTS, JOSEPH SCOTT AND ELIZABETH HIS WIFE, HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF JOHN WATTS, DECEASED, APPELLANTS v. WILLIAM WADDLE AND ALEXANDER WADDLE'S ADMINISTRATORS, AND ALEXANDER WADDLE, AND WILLIAM, JOHN, LUCY, EDWARD AND ARGUS WADDLE, INFANTS, BY BENJAMIN G. LEONARD THEIR NEXT FRIEND, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF JOHN WADDLE, DECEASED, AND WILLIAM LAMB
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

31 U.S. 389

6 Pet. 389

8 L.Ed. 437

WILLIAM W. WATTS AND ARTHUR WATTS'S EXECUTORS, AND

WILLIAM W. WATTS, ARTHUR WATTS, JOSEPH SCOTT AND

ELIZABETH HIS WIFE, HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF JOHN

WATTS, DECEASED, APPELLANTS

v. WILLIAM WADDLE AND ALEXANDER WADDLE'S ADMINISTRATORS, AND ALEXANDER WADDLE, AND WILLIAM, JOHN, LUCY, EDWARD AND ARGUS WADDLE, INFANTS, BY BENJAMIN G. LEONARD THEIR

NEXT FRIEND, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF JOHN WADDLE,

DECEASED, AND WILLIAM LAMB.

January Term, 1832

APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Ohio.

In the circuit court of Ohio, John Watts, a citizen of the state of Kentucky, filed a bill in chancery against John Waddle and William Lamb, the appellees, to obtain a perpetual injunction to stay proceedings by John Waddle on a judgment obtained in the circuit court against him, for damages for the non-performance of a contract made by him with John Lamb in November 1815, which contract had been assigned by him to John Waddle; and also to compel Waddleor Lamb to a specific execution of the contract. The contract was for the sale of certain lots of ground in the town of Chillicothe to William Lamb, for which John Watts agreed to give a good and sufficient general warranty conveyance, by the 1st day of February 1816, or as soon as a final decree should be rendered in the circuit court of the United States, in a suit instituted to compel Nathaniel Massie and others, to make a conveyance to the complainant of the legal title to the said lots, the elder equitable title thereto being in the complainant. William Lamb, or his assignee John Waddle, was in possession of the premises at the time of the contract, and continued to hold the same until and after the judgment for the damages.

Numerous and continuing obstacles, arising, as was alleged, from other causes than the fault or laches of John Watts, interposed and prevented the conveyance of the premises by a sufficient legal title until 1826.

In 1824 William Lamb assigned the contract between him and John Watts to John Waddle, who thereupon instituted the suit against John Watts, he having been found in Ohio; and obtained a judgment for damages for the non-performance thereof, amounting to seven thousand seven hundred and forty-five dollars and fifty cents.

In 1826 John Watts tendered to John Waddle, as the assignee of John Lamb, a deed of conveyance of the lots, in conformity, as was alleged, with the contract of 1815, which was refused by him.

The circuit court of Ohio dismissed the bill of the complainants; and the executors and legal representatives of John Watts thereupon prosecuted this appeal.

The facts of the case are stated more particularly in the opinion of the court.

For the appellants, Mr Creighton and Mr Clay contended, that the decree of the circuit court ought to be reversed on the grounds:

1. That the said circuit court ought to have decreed a specific execution of the contract between Watts and Lamb; Watts having throughout manifested a bona fide intention to fulfil his covenant, and having, for that purpose, done all that was incumbent upon him to possess himself of the legal title, which he tendered, as soon as he acquired it, to Waddle; and neither Lamb or Waddle, who have constantly remained in quiet possession of the property, having ever demanded a deed, or sustained any injury in consequencee of not receiving one.

2. But if the court below ought to have refused to compel Waddle now to receive a title from Watts, it ought to have made Lamb and Waddle liable for the rents and profits of the estate, from the date of Watts's covenant to the termination of the suit; inasmuch as they had recovered a judgment for principal and interest of the purchase money, and had peaceably enjoyed the possession and reaped the fruits of the property, up to this time. And this allowance, for rents and profits, ought to have been applied by the court in abatement of the amount of the judgment at law.

They cited 5 Peters, 264. 2 Peters's Condensed Reports, 247. 1 Wheat. 179, 196. 6 Wheat. 528. 6 Cranch, 148.

Mr Leonard, for the appellees, argued:

1. That according to the contract, the deed was to have been delivered in 1818, when the appellant obtained a final decree in the circuit court in the suit against Massie and others; and not being at that time able to make a legal and sufficient title, the complainant could not, in 1826 or afterwards, call on the appellees to accept of the title. The right of the appellees to damages for the breach of the contract of 1815, could not be impaired by the subsequent ability of the appellant, if it existed, to make the title. Cited, Sug. on Vendors, 249. 1 Harrison's Chancery, tit. Decree, 424, 425, 426. 1 Mad. Chan. 430.

2. The rents and profits could not be set off in the action for damages; nor should this court now give the appellant the benefit of the claim to them, against the judgment of the circuit court. Cited, Coop. Equity, 13, 14, 333. 2 Atk. 3, 141, 325. 12 Ves. 48. 17 Ves. 114, 118. 2 Ves. Sen. 225. 2 Peters, 612. 1 Wheat. 179. 7 Wheat. 535.

Mr Justice M'LEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought into this court by an appeal from the decree of the circuit court for the district of Ohio. The bill was filed in that court by the complainant to compel the specific execution of a contract, entered into with the defendant Lamb, on the 1st day of November 1815; by which the complainant bound himself to convey certain out-lots and other land, adjacent to the town of Chillicothe, to the said Lamb, for the consideration of four thousand seven hundred and sixteen dollars and sixty-six and two-thirds cents. The conveyance was to be made on the 1st day of February ensuing, or so soon as a final decree should be rendered by the United States circuit court for the district of Ohio, in the suit then pending in said court, wherein the said Watts was complainant and Nathaniel Massie and others defendants.

That suit had been brought by Watts against Massie and others, including the above defendant Lamb, to recover one thousand acres of land, which included the land sold by the above contract, to which Watts derived title from Ferdinand O'Neal, who claimed under an entry made by virtue of a warrant which had been granted to him for military services. To recover this tract of land, Watts first brought a suit against Massie in the federal court of Kentucky, charging him with having fraudulently surveyed the lands of O'Neal, so as to throw it within the lines of a survey, in the name of Powell, which was owned by Massie, or in which he had an interest. In this suit Watts prevailed, and an appeal being taken to the supreme court, the decree of the circuit court was affirmed.

To carry this decree into effect in the state of Ohio, suit was instituted by Watts in the circuit court; and this was the suit referred to in the contract between Watts and Lamb.

By the decree in Kentucky, which was affirmed by the supreme court, O'Neal's entry 509 was made to embrace the land specified in the contract; and the decree required Massie to convey to Watts all the land covered by the survey of the above entry, although within entries No. 503 and 2462, amounting to one thousand acres; and Watts was required to convey one thousand acres, which were within the calls of entry 509. Neither of these conveyances has been executed.

A final decree was obtained in this suit in the circuit court for Ohio, in favour of Watts, in January 1818. Neither Lamb nor Massie took an appeal in this case to the supreme court; but it was appealed by some of the defendants, who, it is stated, had no interest in the land now in dispute. A final decree in favour of Watts was entered in the supreme court in September 1822.

In the year 1818 it was ascertained that no patent had been granted on O'Neal's warrant, and, consequently, that Massie did not possess the legal title; but, on application, a patent was issued to Watts on the 1st of March 1826. It appears, however, that a patent had issued to the heirs of Powell; on an entry 503, on the 4th of November 1818, which covered a part of the land that Watts had sold to Lamb.

Finding that the legal estate was vested in Powell's heirs, Watts commenced a suit against them in the circuit court of Kentucky, and obtained a decree for the land contained in their patent, which interfered with his title, in the fall of the year 1826.

Lamb having assigned the covenant to his co-defendant Waddle, in January 1824, he commenced a suit against Watts for the recovery of the consideration paid: and at July term 1826, obtained a judgment in the circuit court for seven thousand seven hundred and forty-five dollars and fifty cents, damages and costs.

On the 3d of July, before the judgment, Watts tendered to Waddle a deed in fee simple for the land, in the contract agreed to be conveyed, with the costs of the suit, which he refused. A bill was then filed by Watts to enjoin the judgment and compel the defendants to accept of a deed. The bill contains also a prayer for general relief. By the decree of the circuit court this bill was dismissed, from which the complainant appealed to this court. Watts having died since this suit has been pending in this court, it is now prosecuted by his heirs.

The complainants insist, that, under all the circumstances of the case, they are entitled to a specific execution of the contract. Of this there can be no doubt, if it shall appear, that there has been a substantial compliance with the covenant on the part of their ancestor. The aid of a court of chancery will be given, to either party, who claims a specific execution of a contract; if it appear that, in good faith and within the proper time, he has performed the obligations which devolved on him.

It is insisted that the delay which occurred in making a deed was unavoidable, and is in no manner attributable to negligence or want of good faith in Watts. That it...