More v. Smedburgh
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decree of the vice chancellor of the fourth circuit, dismissing the complainants bill with costs.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the vice chancellor of the fourth circuit, dismissing the complainants bill with costs. The bill was filed against W. F. Brackney in his life time, for the purpose of compelling the specific performance of a contract made by bim for the purchase of a tannery and other lands connected therewith, in the county of Déla vare, in December, 1886. Smedburgh was made a party defendant, as the assignee of a judgment against the complainants, which had previously been purchased by Brackney, to be applied in part payment of the premises according to the terms of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
I fully concur in the very able opinion of the vice chancellor, as to the impolicy of permitting the vendor, in an executory contract for the sale of lands, to insist upon a specific performance after the purchaser has actually relinquished the contract in consequence of the neglect of the former to comply with the conditions thereof on his part. But I think the circumstances of the present case were such as to take it out of the general principles laid down by him. The pleadings and proofs in this case, as well as the contract itself, show that the parties did not contemplate…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Schiffer v. . DietzNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Hubbell v. . Von SchoeningNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Williams v. Shamrock Oil Gas Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1936
- Braithwaite v. AkinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.