Ensign v. Kellogg
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a bill in equity for the specific performance of a contract. The bill sets forth, that on the 12th of June, 1818, the defendants executed a bond to Austin Kinney, in the penalty of 1000 dollars, with condition that they would convey to him, or to such other person as he should nominate and appoint, a certain saw mill and saw mill yard, and the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, immediately after the payment, to be made on or before May 1, 1690, of 600…
Read the full summary
This was a bill in equity for the specific performance of a contract. The bill sets forth, that on the 12th of June, 1818, the defendants executed a bond to Austin Kinney, in the penalty of 1000 dollars, with condition that they would convey to him, or to such other person as he should nominate and appoint, a certain saw mill and saw mill yard, and the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, immediately after the payment, to be made on or before May 1, 1690, of 600 dollars and interest from the date of the bond, in addition to 300 dollars already paid by Kinney; that on the day of the…
1Per curiam
We are satisfied that no subject is more proper for the power of a court of chancery in decreeing specific execution, than a contract for the sale of real estate ; for what is agreed to be done, ought in conscience to be done.1 And we think such contracts are clearly within the chancery powers granted by the legislature to this Court.2 Nor is the remedy at law for damages complete or adequate ; for the thing contracted for is wanted, and the value in money may often be an unsatisfactory compensation.
The objections to the assignment of the contract we think not supported. By the original…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Canajoharie & Palatine Church v. LeiberNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Peifer v. LandisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
3Cited by1 opinion
- Heady v. HollmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913